W, I
fS s
FULKE'S DEFENCE,
&C.
^or tt)e l^ut)ltcatton of tfje ^!Mov'k& of ti)e dFatf)rr0
and asavlv SlSHritct 0 of tf)t liefortneti
A DEFENCE
OF THE SINCERE AND TRUE TRANSLATIONS OF THE
HOLY SCRIPTURES INTO THE ENGLISH TONGLT:,
AGAINST THE CAVII.S OK
GREGORY MARTIN.
WILLIAM ^FULKE, D.D.
MASTER OF PEMBROKE HALL, CAMBRIDGE.
EDITED FOR
^6e Jlatfe^t Sotiet|),
BY THE
REV. CHARLES HENRY HARTSHORNE, MA
CURATF. OF COGENHOE, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.
CAMBRIDGE:
PRINTED AT
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
M.DCCC.XLin.
BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
WILLIAM FULKE.
It is a circumstance wliich has frequently been re-
marked, that those authors who by their writings have
greatly benefitted mankind, have left to posterity few
particulars from which may be gathered the events of
their own life. The course of a scholar rarely exhibits
any incidents or features of variety. Living more with
past generations than his own, holding converse with his
books in preference to the world without, the daily tenor
of his habits and occupations continues the same. We must
be contented, therefore, to dwell with him in his seclusion,
and to read the expression of his recorded thoughts, rather
than expect to have to trace his history in events of
more stirring interest. Such is the case with respect to
the subject of the present memoir. The few particulars
that have been preserved of the biography of William
Fulke, may be briefly stated.
Of his parentage nothing is known. Bishop Wren',
who took some trouble to glean notices of liis life, has
not even left us the date of liis bu"th : but we are inci-
dentally informed by himself that he was born before the
year 1538. (See p. 41, and compare the statement there
with the notice in p. ix. of No. 17 of his works.) It is
[} Bishop Wren's collections have been used for a similar pur-
pose by Tanner. (Historical Account of the Masters of Pembroke
Hall. Compiled by Matthew Wren, Bishop of Ely. A MS. volume
in possession of the College. Leland's Collectanea, Vol. v. p. 390.)
The Manuscript life in Caius ('oUege Library seems to be copied from
the former.]
11 BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
reasonably presumed, that he was born in London ; and
that whilst a boy at school he manifested indications of
that talent which developed itself so conspicuously at a
later age. An anecdote has been preserved wliich shews
that even at an early period he was possessed with the
ambition of distinguishing himself above his associates. It
happened, singularly enough, that as a schoolfellow he came
into competition with Edmund Campian m a contest for
the prize of a silver pen, offered by one of the masters as
a reward for the best Uterary exercise. Our aspiring young
scholar being unsuccessful bore liis disappointment with
so ill a grace as to shed tears under it, indignantly
looking forward to the reprisals of a future competition.
From Christ's Hospital, where it appears likely that Fulke
received the rudiments of his education, (as it is certain
that Campian was educated there ^) he was transferred to
St John's College, Cambridge, a. d. 1555. After taking liis
degree of bachelor of arts, his father, designing him for the
legal profession, entered him a student of Chfford's Inn.
During the six years and upwards that he remained here
pursuing legal studies, he made himself weU acquainted with
the sciences, and gave to the world his Ovpavoixa-^^ia, a
treatise in which he exposed the absurdities of astrology.
At length returning to the University, he proceeded to his
Master's degree, being at the same time elected fellow of
his college, a.d. 1564.
The change thus indicated in his plans so displeased
his father, that for a time he withdrew from him the neces-
sary means of subsistence. The zeal of Fulke suffered,
however, Httle diminution under his pecuniary difficulties ;
and we find him immediately pursuing his new course of
study with alacrity. To that of theology he now joined
[} This however is np conclusive evidence, especially as Fulke must
have been at least fifteen years old at the time of tlie foundation of the
Hospital (1553).]
OF WILLIAM FULKE. HI
the acquisition of the oriental languages, a deep knowledge
of which was by no means common at the time. He pro-
ceeded to the degree of bachelor of divinity ; and dissen-
sions immediately afterwards springing up in liis college,
and liimself bemg suspected of holding puritanical opinions
in consequence of his close intimacy with Cartwright, he
was ejected from the society. Driven from his college, he
commenced a course of lectures, and held disputations in
a house which was afterwards the Falcon Inn. These were
attended by a numerous class of students.
The time was however approaching, when his fortunes
were to witness a beneficial change ; for the Earl of Leices-
ter, who was anxious to promote men of merit, irrespectively
of ti'ifling differences of opinion, had singled him out as
eminently deserving preferment. Through his means he
was presented, Aug. 10, 1571, to the rectory of Warley
in Essex, and soon afterwards, March, 1573, to that of
Bennington in Suffolk. On the earl of Lincoln being sent
as British ambassador to Paris, Fulke was appointed one
of his suite, a circumstance which enabled him to obtain
the honorary degree of doctor of divinity.
The same influence may have contributed to his ad-
vancement to the mastership of Pembroke College in 1578,
on the promotion of Dr Young to the see of Rochester.
He had in this elevated station ample leisure to devote his
talents to polemical theology ; and that he advantageously
availed himself of it, is sufficiently evident from the numerous
works he has left to posterity in vindication of the reformed
religion. He was also engaged in 1580 and following
years in repeated disputations with the Papists, sometimes
in the Tower, and once at least in Wisbech Castle. (See
No. 17, in the subjoined list of his works.) This castle,
originally built by William the Conqueror, was afterwards con-
verted into a palace of the bishops of Ely, and in the reign
of Elizabeth was used as a prison for popish conspirators.
IV BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
One account states that he was also Margaret Professor
of Divinity ; but this fact appears to be at least very
doubtful. Having filled the office of vice-chancellor, and
governed his college for eleven years, Fulke died in Au-
gust, 1589.
The voluminous writings he left behind him are monu-
ments of that industry and love of study, which (it is
supposed) alone prevented his higher advancement in the
church ; and they furnish satisfactory evidence, that among
contemporary scholars none surpassed him in erudition, in a
grammatical and deep acquaintance with the learned tongues,
in acutcness and closeness of reasoning: none devoted more
vigorous and untiring energy in supporting the bulwarks
of the Church of England.
He was buried in the chancel of his church at Den-
nington, and the following epitaph was placed by one of
his admiring successors over his tomb.
30. November. 1621.
In Memoriam
Reverendi Gulielmi Fulke, Sacrae Theologize Doct. Aulse
Pemb. in Cantabrigia Prsefect. Hujus Ecclesise Dinning-
toniensis pastor, ac in Testimonium amoris sui perpetui erga
eum, hoc Monumentum posiiit Robertus Wright, Sacrae quo-
que TheologisB Professor, et nunc cjusdem Ecclesise Pastor.
Corpus ilUus Terra) traditum fuit 28 Die August! 1589, et
in hoc saccUo jacet resurrectionem expectans per adventura
Christi.
If deepest Learning, with a zealous Love
To Heaven and Truth, could Priveledges prove
To keep back Death, no Hand had written here
Lies Reverend Fulke, 'till Christ in Clouds appear ;
His Works will shew, him free from all Error,
Rome's Foe, Truth's Champion, and Rhemishes Terror.
OF WILLIAM FULKE. 'V
Heureux celui qu' apres un long Travaill
. S 'est assure de son repos au Ciell.
The present volume, it is believed, will be found to be
an accurate reprint (with a corrected punctuation, which
was much needed) of the original edition of the "Defence,"
1583. But in one or two places a correction has been
introduced from the folio edition, 1633 : ex. gr. p. 550,
senseless for insenseless, which, though not perhaps ab-
solutely necessary, it appeared desirable and safe to adopt
on such authority. In several instances also, in which the
quotation from Martin was inaccurately given by Fulke, the
mistake has been corrected by reference to the original*
In both the old editions there was subjoined to the
present work (but with a separate paging), ' A briefs con-
futation of all such quarrels and cauils, as have bene of late
vttered by diuerse Papistes in their Enghsh Pamphlets,
against the writings of the saide William Fulke ;' as the
reader will see in the copy of the original title-page pre-
fixed to this publication. This ' Confutation,' however, has
no connection whatever with the ' Defence of the Transla-
tions :' it is therefore not here re-printed with it, but is
reserved for a future volume of Fulke, where it will come
more appropriately in company with the works which it
undertakes to defend.
Besides the 'Defence' reprinted in the present volume,
Fulke was the author of the following works :
1. Antiprognosticon contra inutiles astrologorum pr^e-
dictiones Nostrodami, Cunninghami, Loui, HilU, Vaghami et
reliquorum omnium. Authore Guilielmo Fulcone. Authori-
tate Londinensis episcopi juxta formam in edictis reginsB pre-
scriptam. Sexto die Septembris, 1560. Lond. 8vo.
VI BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
A translation of this work was published in the yeai*
1561, (Tanner says 1560), with the following title : Anti-
prognosticon, that is to saye, an Inucctive agaynst the uaine
and vnprofitable predictions of the astrologians, as Nostro-
dame, &c. Translated out of Latin into Englishe. Where-
unto is added, by the author, a short treatise in Englishe,
as Avell for the better subuersion of that fained arte, as
also for the better vnderstanding of the common people,
vnto whom the fyrst labour seemeth not sufficient. Lond.
1561, 8vo.
2. A goodly gallery, with a most pleasaunt prospect
into the garden of naturall contemplation, to beholde the
naturall causes of all kind of Meteors. As well fyery as
ayery, as watry and earthly, of which sorte be biasing
starres, shootingc starres, flames in the ayre, &c.; thonder,
lightninge, earthquakes, &c. ; rayne, dew, snowe, cloudes,
springes, &c. ; stones, metalles, earthes. To the glory of
God, and the profitte of his creatures. Lond. 1571, 8vo.
1634, 1640, 8vo. From the colophon of the edition of
1571, it appears that this book was printed in 1563, but
no copy has been found with that date on the title-page,
and the edition of 1640 is styled the third. Tanner men-
tions editions in 1563 and 1580, under the title of ' Me-
teorologia, AngHce.'
3. Ovpavona-^ia^ hoc est, Astrologorum Indus ad bo-
narum artium et Astrologiae in primis studiosorum relax-
ationem comparatus, nunc primum illustratus, ac in lucem
feditus per Guihelmum Fulconem, Cantabrigiensem. Abacus
et calculi vseneunt apud Guilielmum Jones, in longa officina,
ad occidentalem Paulini templi portam. Londini per Thomas
Eastum et Henricum Middeltonnum impensis Guilielmi Jones.
1571, 1572, 1573, 4to.
4. A confutation of a Popish and sclaunderous libelle,
in form of an Apologie : geuen out into the courte, and
spread abrode in diuerse other places of the realme. Written
OF WILLIAM i'ULKE. Vll
by William Fulke, Bachelor in Diuinitie, and felowe of S.
Johns CoUedge in Cambridge, Imprinted at London by
John Ivingston for Wilham Jones, and are to be soldo at the
noAve long shop at the west ende of Ponies. 1571, 1573,
1574, 12mo.
5. A Sermon preached at Hampton Court on Sonday,
being the 12th day of Nouember, in the year of our Lord
1570. Wherein is plamly proued Babylon to be Rome,
both by Scriptures and Doctors. Preached by WiUiam
Fulke, Bacheler of Diuinity, and Fellow of S. Johns Col-
ledge in Cambridge. ApocaUps. 14. She is fallen, she
is fallen, euen Babylon, that great citie, for of the wyne of
the fury of her fornication, she hath made all nationsv to
drinke. Imprinted at London, by John Awdely. 1572,
12mo.
There was a subsequent edition with the same title,
except that FuUie was described as ' Doctor' not ' Bachelor',
and ' lately Fellow', &c. Imprinted at London by John
Charlewod, 1579, 12mo.
6. In sacram Divi Johannis Apocalypsim praelectiones.
Lend. 1573, 4to. Translated into English by George
Gyfford. Lond. 1573, 4to.
7. A Comfortable Sermon of Fayth in temptations and
afflictions. Preached at S. Botulphes wythout Aldersgate
in London, the xv of February, 1573, by Maister William
Fulke, Doctor of Divinity. 1 John v. 4. Imprinted at
London by John Audeley. 1574, 1578, 1586, 12mo.
8. Two treatises written against the papistes ; the
one being an answer of the Christian protestant to the
proud challenge of a popish catholicke : the other, a confu-
tation of the popish churches doctrine touching purgatory
and prayers for the dead. By Wilham Fulke, Doctor in
Divinitie. Lond. Thomas VautrolUer, 1577, 8vo. pp. 464.
9. A sermon preached on Sunday c, being the I7th of
March, anno 1577, at S. Alphage's church within Creplegate
VIU BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
in London, by William Fulke, Doctor in Divinitie. Seene
and allowed, accordyng to the order appoynted in the
queenes maiesties iniunctions. Imprinted at London for
Lucas Harryson, 1577, 12mo.
This sermon was translated into Latin, by John Fox,
and appended to his book, entitled De Christo gratis ius-
tificante, Lond. 1583.
10. Mer/jo/Map^/a, sive Indus geometricus. Auctore
Guiliemo Fulcone Anglo. Lond. Thomas VautroUerius,
1578, 4to.
11. GuiHelmi Fulconis Angli ad epistolam Stanislai
Hosii Varmiensis episcopi de expresso Dei verbo Responsio.
Lond. 1578, 12mo.
12. D. Heskins, D. Sanders, and M. Rastell accounted
(among their faction) three pillers and archpatriarches of the
popish synagogue, (utter enemies to the truth of Christes
Gospell and all that syncerely profess the same) ouerthrowne
and detected of their seuerell blasphemous heresies. By D.
Fulke, Maister of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge. Lond.
1579, 8vo. pp. 803.
This work consists of three treatises mentioned by Tan-
ner separately, as ' Heskins parHament repealed,' ' Confu-
tation of N. Sanders his treatise of worshipping images,' and
' Refutation of John Rastell's confutation.'
13. Ad ThomaB Stapletoni, Professoris Regii et Ordina-
rii in Academia Duacena, controversiarum et calumnias in sua
principiorum doctrinalium demonstratione methodica contra
satisfactione, ad Rishtoni postulata quaedam, lib. 4. cap. 10 et
11 adliibitas, Guihelmi Fulconis, Angli, aulae Pembrochianae in
Cantabrigiensi academia praefecti, Responsio. Londini, im-
pensis Georgii Bishop, 1579, 8vo.
14. A Retentive to stay good Christians in true faith
an(Lreligion, against the motives of Richard Bristow. Also,
a discoverie of the daungerous Rocke of the Popish Church,
commended by Nicholas Sander, Doctor of Divinitie. Done
OF WILLIAM FULKE. IX
by William Fiilke, Doctor of Divinitie, and Maister of Pem-
broke Hall in Cambridge. Lond. Thomas Vautrollier, 1580,
8vo, pp. 316.
15. T. Stapleton and Martiall (two Popish Heretikes)
confuted, and of theii' particular heresies detected. Bv
D. Fulke, Master of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge. Done
and directed to all those that love the truth, and hate
superstitious vanities. Lond. H. Middleton, Svo. 1580,
pp. 217.
16. Stapletonii fortalitium expugnatum ; cum refutatione
replicationis J. Martialis ad J. Calfhillum contra librum ejus
de cruce. Lond. 1580, 12mo.
17. Conferentia cum pontificiis in castro Wisbicensi.
4. Oct. 1580. Lond. 1580. Svo.
18. The text of the New Testament of Jesus Christ,
translated out of the Vulgar Latine by the Papists of the
traiterous Seminarie at Rhemes. With arguments of Bookes,
Chapters, and Annotations, pretending to discouer the cor-
ruptions of diuers translations, and to clear the controuersies
of these days. Whereunto is added the translation out of
the original Greeke, commonly used in the Church of Eng-
land, with a confutation of all such Arguments, Glosses,
and Annotations as contein manifest impietie or heresie,
treason, and slander against the Cathohke Church of God,
and the true teachers thereof, or the translations used in
the Church of England. Both by aucthoritie of the holy
vScriptures, and by the testimonie of ancient fathers. By
William FuUce, D.D. Lond. 1580, 1589, 1601, 1617,
1633, fol.
19. A Sermon on 2 Saml. xxiv. 1. Lond. 1580, 8vo.
20. A Sermon at the Tower on John xvii. 17. Lond.
1580, 8vo. 1581, 16mo.
21. A rejoynder to Bristow's Replie in defence of
Aliens scrolc of Articles and Bookc of Purgatoric. Also
the cavils of Nicholas Sander, Doctor in Divinitie, about
X mOGKAPHlCAL ACCOUNT
the Supper of our Lord, and the Apologie of the Church
of England touching the doctrine thereof. Confuted by
Wilham Fulke, Doctor in Divinitie, and Master of Pem-
broke Hall in Cambridge. At London, H. Middleton,
1581, 8vo. pp. 792.
22. A Brief Confutation of a Popish Discourse, lately
set forth, and presumptuously dedicated to the Queenes most
excellent maiestie, by John Howlet, or some other Birde of
the night under that name. Contayning certaine reasons
why Papistes refuse to come to Church, which are here
inserted and set downe at large, with their seuerall answeres.
By D. Fulke, maister of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge.
Seeno and allowed. At London, printed for George Bishop,
1581, 4to.
23. A Brief and Plain Declaration : containing the de-
sires of all those faithful Ministers who seek Discipline and
Reformation of the Church of England, which may come as
a just Apology against the false Accusations and Slanders
of their Adversaries. 1584.
24. De Successione Ecclesiastica et latente ab Anti-
christi tyrannide ecclesia, Liber contra Tliomse Stapletoni
principiorum fidei doctrinalium librum decimum tertium ;
auctore Guihelmo Fulcone Anglo, Aulae Pembrochianro in
Cantabrigiensi Academia Prsefecto. Lond. Henricus Midle-
tonus, impensis Georgii Bishop, 1584, 12mo. pp. 474.
25. An apologie of the professors of the Gospel in
Fraunce against the railing declamation of Peter Frarine
a Louanian turned into English by John Fowler. Written
by William Fulke. 8vo. pp. 54. This and also the fol-
lowing work, No. 26, were published separately, and also
appended to the ' Treatise against the defence of the censure
given upon the books of W. Clarke and Meredith Hanmer,
by an unknown popish traytor, in defence of the seditious
challenge of Edmond Caippion.' Camb. 1586, 8vo.
26. A Confutation of a treatise made by Wilham Allen
OF WILLIAM FULKE.
in defence of the usurped power of Popish Priesthood to
remit emnes, of the necessity of Shrift, and of the Popes
pardons. By William Fullce. Imprinted by Thomas Thomas,
Cambridge, [1586], pp. 531, 8vo. Tanner mentions an
edition. Lend. 1586, 8vo.
Amongst the Harleian Manuscripts are the following :
No. 422. fol. 148.
A Disputation or Conference had within the Towre of
London, on Monday, being the 18th of September, A. D.
1581. Wherein were assembled the Lorde of Glanrikerd, Sir
Owen Hopton, Su* WilUam George, Sir Thomas Hinnage,
Sir Nicholas Poynes, besides others : Doctour Foulkes 'and
Doctour Goade, Disputants, being sitting at a table, having
there certaine bookes about them. Mr Clarke and Mr Field
being as Notaries at the said table, and for the said Con-
ference appointed ; before whom and right opposite upon a
stoole was sett Mr Campion, Jesuite, having only his Bible.
Ibid. fol. 168.
A third Disputation between the said Doctors Fulke and
Goade opponents, and Campion the Jesuite respondent.
A report of these conferences, but differing considerably
from that contained in these MSS., was published with the
following title, ' The three last dayes conferences had in the
Tower with Edmund Campion, Jesuite, the 18. 23. and
27. of September, 1581. Collected and faithfully set down
by M. John Fielde, student in Diuinitie. Nowe perused
by the learned men themselues, and thought meete to be
published.' Januarij 1, 1583. London, 4to. This volume
is often found appended to the report of the first day's con-
ference to which Fulke was not a party.
Xll NOTICE OP
To the foregoing account of Fulke it may be interesting to
the reader to have subjoined a brief notice of his
opponent, Gregory Martin.
Gregory Martin was born at Maxfield near Winchelsea,
but in what precise year we are unable to state. The
earliest date connected with his life informs us, that in 1557
he was nominated one of the original scholars of St John's
college, Oxford, by the founder Sir Thomas White. He
went through the usual course of logic and philosophy with
great diligence, and took his Master of arts' degree in 1564.
Shortly afterwards he was engaged by Thomas duke of
Norfolk to be tutor to his cliildren, amongst whom he had
the honour of instructing Philip, the celebrated earl of Arundel.
That Martin was a person of considerable reputation may
be gathered from the circumstance, that when his patron
visited Oxford, one of the feUows of St John's dehvered
before him a speech, in wliich Martin was highly compli-
mented as a Hebrew and Greek scholar, and commemorated
as a distinguished ornament of theu* society.
Having terminated his engagement in the duke of
Norfolk's family he went abroad, and openly renounced
the Protestant rehgion, having been previously a favourer
of the doctrmes of the Romish church only in secret. He
now settled himself at Douay, applied liimself to the study
of theology, was ordained priest in 1573, and licentiate in
divinity in 1575. He subsequently travelled ; visited Rome,
and the other places in Italy which a person of his views
would most naturally desire to see, and at length per-
manently fixed himself at Rheims, where he became public
professor and one of the readers of divinity in the EngHsh
semmary. He died there Oct. 28, 1582, and was buried
in St Stephen's church. ,
Martin was considered a person of great learning, an
GREGORY MARTIN, Xlll
excellent linguist, and superior to most scholars of his time.
Besides the work reprinted in the present volume, he was
one of the principal persons concerned in that translation of
the New Testament, which is quoted and generally known
under the title of the Rhemish. The first edition was
printed at Rheims in 4to in 1582 : a second edition by
Daniel VerveUet at Antwerp, 4to, 1600 : a third in 1630,
and a fourth at Paris in 1633. It was reprinted in London,
with "the Bishops'" translation in a parallel column: and
' A Confutation of all such arguments, glosses, and annota-
tions as contain manifest impiety, or heresy, treason and
slander against the catholick Church of God, and the true
teachers thereof, or the translations used in the Church, of
England ; by Dr WilUam Fulke.' The marginal notes of
the Rhemish Testament were answered in 1588, in " A
View of the marginal notes of the Popish Testament, trans-
lated into English by the Enghsh fugitive papists resident
at Rheims, in France, by George Withers." The Rhemish
translation was also reprinted in 1618 'by some friends
to the memory of the learned Thomas Cartwright,' with a
Confutation \
The following are the titles of other works attributed
to Gregory Martin by Antony Wood, Tanner, and Dod :
A Treatise of Schisme ; shewing that al Catholikes
ought in any wise to abstaine altogether from heretical con-
venticles, to witt, their Prayers, Sermons, &c. 1578, b. 1.
1587, Doway-,
A Treatyse of Christian Peregrinatione ; written by
M. Gregory Martin, Licentiate, and late Reader of Divinitie,
[' Towneley's lUustr. of Biblical Literature, Vol. iii, pp. 74, 75,
Lewis's Hist, of Engl, Transl, of the Bible, pp. 294, 295,]
[^ For reprinting this book Carter the printer was condemned of
treason and executed, it being thought to contain a recommendation to
assasinate the queen. See Concert. Ecclesiae Cathol. pp. 127, 129, 130.
Strype's Annals, xi. 587, iii. 281, ch, 23. Fuller's Church Hist, xvi,
169,]
XIV NOTICE OF GREGORY MARTIN.
at Kernes : Whereunto is adioyned certen Epistles written
by him to Sundrye his frendes ; the copies whereof were
since his decease foimde amonge his writtings. Nowe espe-
cially pubhshed for the benefite of those that either erre
in religione of simplicitie, or folow the worlde of frailty.
Lond. 1583. 16mo.
Against the Marriage of Priests. 1584.
Of the love of the Soul, with questions to the Protes-
tants. Printed at Rouen and St Omer's. 12mo. 1603.
Roma Sancta.
Dictionarium quatuor linguarum, Hebraicse, Graecpe, La-
tinaB, et Anglicse, et vocabulorum ac phrasium secundum
cuj usque linguae proprietatem.
Compendium historiarum, hb. i.
Orationes de jejunio, de imaginum usu et cultu. MS, in
the library of John Pits.
Pro veteri et vera Graecarum literarum pronuntia-
tione, adversus Adolphum Mekerchium Brugensem. Edit.
Havercamp. Ludg. Bat. 1740.
Diversorum carminum partim Graece partim Latine,
lib. I.
Besides these lie left behind several translations.
The Editor of the present volume has the pleasure of
expressing his grateful acknowledgements to the Right Hon.
the Earl Spencer, for the permission allowed him to con-
sult the valuable collection of Bibles at Althorpe
DEFENCE
OF
THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS
OP THE
HOLY SCRIPTURES,
IN REPLY TO
GRJ^GORY MARTIN'S
DISCOVERY OF CORRUPTIONS BY HERETICS.
[fulke.]
ta defense
of the sincere and true Tran-
slations of the holie Scriptures into
the English tong, against the manifolde cauils,
friuolous quarels,and impudent slaunders of Gre-
GORiE Martin, one of the readers of Po-
pish diuinitie in the trayterous Serai-
narie of Rhemes.
By William Fvlke D. in Diuinitie,
and M. of Pembroke haule in Cambridge.
Wherevnto is added a briefe confutation of alt such
quarrels & cauils, as have bene of late vttered by diuerse
Papistes in their English Pamphlets, against the
writings of the saide William Fvlke.
AT LONDON:
Imprinted by Henrie Bynneman,
for George Bishop.
Anno. 1583.
Cum gratia 4* Priuilegio.
A DISCOVERIE
OF THE MANIFOLD
CORRVPTIONS OF THE
HOLY SCRIPTVRES BY THE
Heretikes of our daies, specially the
English Sectaries, and of their foule
dealing herein, by partial & false trans-
lations to the aduantage of their here-
sies, in their EngUsh Bibles vsed and
authorised since the time of Schisme.
By Gregory Martin one of the readers
of Diuinitie in the English College
OP Rhemes.
2 Cor. 2.
Non sumus sicut plurimi, adulterantes verhiin Dei, sed
ex sinceritate, sed sicut ex Deo, coram Deo, in Christo
loquimur.
That is,
We are not as very many, adulterating the word
of God, but of sinceritie, & as of God, before
God, in Christ we speake.
Printed at RHEMES,
By John Fogny,
1582.
1—2
TO THE
MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCESS ELIZABETH,
BY THE GRACE OF GOD QUEEN OF ENGLAND, FRANCE,
AND IRELAND, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c.
Among the inestimable benefits, wherewith Almighty God
hath wonderfully blessed this yoiu' majesty's most honourable
and prosperous government, it is not to be numbered among
the least, that under your most gracious and christian pro-
tection the people of your highness' dominions have enjoyed
the most necessary and comfortable reading of the holy scrip-
tures in their mother tongue and native language. Which
exercise, although it hath of long time, by the adversaries of
him that willeth the scriptures to be searched, (especially
those of our nation,) been accounted httle better than an
D H'skin'''2 heretical practice ; and treatises have been written, pretending
to shew great inconvenience of having the holy scriptures in
the vulgar tongue ; yet now at length perceiving they cannot
prevail to bring in that darkness and ignorance of God's most
sacred word and will therein contained, whereby their blind
[_^ John Standisli here alluded to was admitted a probationer feUow
of Corpus Christi, Oxford, in 1528. In the time of Edward VI. he was
a zealous reformer, made rector of Wigan, and married ; but was sepa-
rated from his wife when queen Mary ascended the throne, and deprived
of his preferment. Bp. Bonner for his affections to popery gave him
the rectory of Packlesham. Among other works he wrote " A Treatise
against the Translation of the Bible into the vulgar language ; printed by
Caley in 1554," of which there was a second edition by the same printer
the following year. Wood's Athense. Vol. i. p. 236 — 8.]
P Thomas Heskins, or Heskyns, was collated by Cardinal Pole to
the chancellorship of Salisbury, 1558, but ejected on the accession of
Elizabeth the following year. (Le Neve's Fasti, p. 269. Wood's Fasti,
p. 113.) Heskins wrote " the Parliament of Christ, concerning the
Sacrament, impugned in a sermon by John Jewell. Ant. 1566. fol."
It was answered by Fulke in his book entitled Heskins' Parliament
repealed by W. F. Lond. 1579.]
THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. &
devotion, the daughter of ignorance, as they themselves pro-
fess, was -wont to make them rulers of the world, they also
at the last are become translators of the New Testament mto
Enghsh. In which, that I speak notliing of their insincere
purpose, in leaving the pm^e fountain of the original verity,
to follow the crooked stream of their barbarous vulgar Latin
translation, which (beside all other manifest corruptions) is
found defective in more than an hundred places, as your ma-
jesty, according to the excellent knowledge in both the tongues
wherewith God hath blessed you, is very well able to judge ;
and to omit even the same book of their translation, pestered
with so many annotations, both false and imdutiful, by which,
under colour of the authority of holy scriptures, they seek to*
infect the minds of the credulous readers with heretical and
superstitious opinions, and to alienate their hearts from yielding
due obedience to your majesty and your most christian laws
concerning true rehgion established; and that I may pass
over the very text of then* translation, obscured without any
necessary or just cause with such a multitude of so strange
and unusual terms, as to the ignorant are no less difficult to
understand, than the Latin or Greek itself: yet is it not meet
to be concealed, that they wliich neither truly nor precisely
have translated their own vulgar Latin and only authentical
text, have nevertheless been bold to set forth a several trea-
tise, in which most slanderously and unjustly they accuse all
om' EngUsh translations of the bible, not of small imperfections
and oversights committed tlu-ough ignorance or negligence, but
of no less than most foul dealing in partial and false transla-
tions, wilful and heretical corruptions.
Against which most lewd and untrue accusation, though
easy to be judged of by such as be learned in the tongues,
yet dangerous to disquiet the conscience of them that be
ignorant in the same, I have written a short and necessary
defence ; which, although not laboured in words, yet in
matter I hope sufficient to avoid all the adversaries' cavils.
THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.
I am most humbly to crave pardon, that I may be bold to
dedicate rnito yom* most excellent majesty ; tliat under whose
high and christian authority yom' people have so many years
enjoyed the reading of the holy books of God in their native
language, to the everlasting benefit of many thousand souls,
under the same your most gracious and royal protection they
may read also the defence of the sincere and faithful trans-
lation of those books, to the quieting of their consciences, and
the confusion of the adversaries of God's truth and holy re-
ligion. By which they may be stirred up more and more in
all dutiful obedience, not only to be thankful unto yom* ma-
jesty, as it becometh them, but also to continue their most
earnest and hearty prayers to Almighty God for this your
most godly and happy regiment over them for many years
forward to be prolonged.
The God of glory, which hitherto hath advanced your
majesty's throne, above all princes of tliis age, in true honour
and glory, vouchsafe to preserve the same with his daily
blessing, to the protection of that glorious reparation
of his church, which you have most happUy
taken in hand, to the everlasting praise
of his mercy, and the endless
fehcity of your
majesty !
Your majesty's most humble subject,
and most bounden daily orator,
WILLIAM FULKE.
THE PREFACE, Martin.
CONTAINING
PIVE SUNDRY ABUSES OR CORRUPTIONS OF HOLY
SCRIPTURES, COMMON TO ALL HERETICS, AND
AGREEING ESPECIALLY TO THESE OF OUR
TIME : WITH MANY OTHER NECES-
SARY ADVERTISEMENTS TO
THE READER.
Martin. As it hath been always the fashion of heretics to pretend Heretics
scriptures for shew of their cause ; so hath it been also their custom speciafiy^
and propei-ty to abuse the said scriptures many ways in favour of their-g^rip^fj^g^s.
errors.
Fulke. Whether these five abuses have been common to Fulkb.
all heretics, and whether it hath been the fashion of all here-
tics to pretend scriptm^es for shew of then* cause, though I
will spare now to inquire of, as a thing wherein learned men
at the first sight may espy the great skill that Martin pre-
tendeth to have in discerning of heretics and heresies ; yet
will I shew (by the grace of God) that none of these five
abuses are committed by us or our catholic translations, and
that the popish heretics are, in some sort or other, guilty of
them all.
Martin. One way is, to deny whole books thereof, or parts of Martin, 1.
books, when they are evidently against them. So did (for example) Jertetn^books
Ebion all St Paul's epistles, Manicheus the Acts of the Apostles, Alo- '^^l^^ °^
giani St John's gospel, Marcion many pieces of St Luke's gospel, and
so did both these and other heretics in_pther books, denying and allowing
what they list, as is evident by St Irenaeus, St Epiphanius, St Augus-
tine, and all antiquity.
Fulke. First, we deny no one book of the canonical Fulke, 1.
scripture, that hath been so received of the cathohc chm-ch,
for the space of 300 years and more, as it hath been often
proved out of Eusebius, St Jerome, and other ancient au-
thorities : but the papists, in advancing apocryphal books to
be of equal credit with the canonical scriptures, do in effect
deny them all. Besides that, to add unto the word of God
is as great a fault as to take away from it, the one being
O THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
forbidden under as heavy a curse as the other. Those blas-
phemies of Pighius' and Eccius", the one calling the holy
scripture a nose of wax and a dumb judge, the other
terming the gospel written to be a black gospel and an
inlvy divinity ; and that of Hosius^, acknowledging none other
express word of God, but only this one word ama, or dilige,
" love thou ;" what other thing do they import, but a shame-
less denial of all books of the holy scripture in deed, howso-
ever in word they will seem to admit them ?
Martin, 2. Martin. Another way is, to call into question at the least, and
of their ''""^ make some doubt of the authority of certain books of holy scriptures,
and'caiimg thereby to diminish their credit. So did Manicheus affimi of the whole
'ueSion'" -^^^ Testament, that it was not written by the apostles; and peculi-
arly of St Matthew's gospel, that it was some other man's under his
name, and therefore not of such credit, but that it might in some part be
refused. So did Marcion, and the Ai-ians, deny the epistle to the He-
brews to be St Paul's, Epiph. lib. 2. haer. 69, Euseb. lib. 4. hist. c. 27 ;
and Alogiani the Apocalypse to be St John's the Evangelist, Epiph. et
August, in hser. Alogianorum.
FuLKE, 2. Fulke. We neither doubt of the authority of any certain
book of the holy scriptures, neither call we any of them into
question ; but with due reverence do acknowledge them all
and every one to be of equal credit and authority, as being
P Sunt enim illae (scripturte), ut non minus vere quam festive dixit
quidam, velut nasus cereus, qui se horsum, illorsum, et in quam volueris
partem, trahi, retrahi, fingique facile permittit. Pighius, Hierarch.
Eccles, Assertio, Lib. iii. cap. 3. fol. 80, edit. 1638. Albert Pighius, a
mathematician and controversialist, bom at Kempen in Westphalia
about 1490, and died 1542.]
P Scriptores canonici semper prius habuerunt evangeUum mentale,
quam ederent illud nigrum in literis. Eck. Apologia pro Principibus
Catholicis. Fol. 74 b. Antverp. 1542. Tu nos ad mortuas pelles, ad
atramentum remittis, et literam. Ibid. fol. 156 b. Echius, or Eckius,
was professor and chancellor of the University of Ingolstad, and a cele-
brated controversialist of the 16th century. His chief work was a
"Manual of Controversy," which went through many editions. He
was born in Suabia in 1486, and died at Ingolstad in 1543.]
Q^ Vis autem quod sit verbum salvificans cognoscere ? Breve verbum
est et expedituni, Ama. Caritas est verbum salvificans, etc. Hosii Opera,
De Expresso Dei Verbo. Tom. i. p. 628. Stanislas Hosius was one of
the most illustrious cardinals of the 16th century, born at Cracow in
1504. He opened the CouncU of Trent as legate from Pius the Fourth,
and was subsequently appointed grand penitentiary by Grcgoiy the Thir-
teenth, He died in 1579.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. if
all inspired of God, given to the church for the building up
thereof in truth, and for the avoiding of fables and heresies.
But the papists, arrogating to their pope authority to allow
or refuse any book of holy scripture, and affirming that
no scripture hath authority but as it is approved by their
church, do bring aU books of the holy scripture into doubting
and uncertainty with such as will depend upon their pope
and popish church's authority, which they affirm to be above
the holy scriptures, saying they might as weU receive the
gospel of Nicodemus as of St Mark, and by the same au-
thority reject the gospel of St Matthew, as they have done
the gospel of St Bartholomew. These blasphemous assertions
although some of them would colom' or mitigate with gentle
interpretations, yet there is no reasonable man but seeth
into what discredit and imcertainty they must needs bring
the authority of the canonical books of holy scripture with
the simple and ignorant.
Martin. Another way is, to expound the scriptures after their own Ma rtin, 3.
private conceit and fantasy, not according to the approved sense of the expositiom'^^
holy ancient fathers and cathoUc church. So did Theodorus Mopsues- evCTy'^onl's"
tites (Act. Synod 5.) affirm of all the books of the prophets, and of the ^g"gj°''
Psalms, that they spake not evidently of Christ ; but that the ancient
fathers did voluntarily draw those sayings unto Christ, which were
spoken of other matters. So did aU heretics, that would seem to ground
their heresies upon scriptiu'es, and to avouch them by scriptxires ex-
pounded according to their own sense and imagination.
Fulke. We expound not the scriptures after our own Fulke, 3.
private conceit and fantasy ; but, as near as God giveth us
grace, according to the plain and natural sense of the same,
agreeable unto the rule or proportion of faith, which being
approved by the ancient fathers^ and catholic church of Clu-ist,
in all matters necessary to eternal salvation : not bringing
a new and strange sense, which is without the scriptures, to
seek confirmation thereof in the scriptures (as the manner
of heretics is rightly noted by Clemens*); but out of the scrip-
tures themselves seek we the exposition of such obscure
places as we find in them, being persuaded with St Augus-
L Ot fie iqBovals <T(pas avrovs eKBeBcoKOT^s jBia^ovrai npos tcis fnt-
6vfiias Trjv ypa<^r)v. Clem. Alexandr. Stromatum vii. p. 890. Ed. Potter.
Venet. 1767.]
10 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
tine^ that nothing in a manner is found out of those obscure and
dark places, which may not be found to be most plainly spoken
in other places. And as for the approved sense of the holy
ancient fathers, and catholic church of the eldest and pm^est
times, if the papists durst stand unto it for the deciding of
many of the most weighty controversies that are between us,
there is no doubt but they should soon and easily be de-
termined, as hath been shewed in divers and many treatises,
written against them. In which if any thing be brought so
plainly expoimding the scripture against their popish heresies,
as nothing can be more express nor clear, then they are driven
to seek new and monstrous expositions of those fathers' inter-
pretations ; or else they answer, " They are but those fathers'
private expositions ;" appealing to the catholic chm'ch's in-
terpretation, which is nothing else but their own private conceit
and fancy, having no record to prove that catholic church's
interpretation but the present heretical opinions of this late
degenerated antichristian congregation. And when they have
discoursed never so much of the cathohc church's interpre-
tation, they reduce and submit all men's judgments to the
determination of their councils, and the decrees of the councils
to the approbation of their pope ; wliich, as he is oftentimes
a wicked man of life, so is he ignorant and unlearned in the
scriptures ; to whose most private censure the holy scriptm-es
themselves, and all sense and exposition of them, is made
subject, under colour that Christ, praying for Peter that his
faith should not fail in temptation, gave all popes such a pre-
rogative, that they could not err in faith ; though they were
wicked of life, void of learning, ignorant in the scriptures,
[} Deinde ilia quae in eis aperte posita sunt, vel precepta vivendi, vel
regulae credendi, sollertius diligentiusque investiganda sunt, quae tanto
quisque plura invenit, quanto est intelligentia capacior. In iis enim
quae aperte in scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur ilia omnia quae con-
tinent fidem moresque vivendi, spem scilicet atque caritatem, de quibus
libro superiore tractavimus. Turn vero facta quadam familiaritate cum
ipsa lingua divinarum scripturarum, in ea quiB obscura sunt aperienda
et discutienda pergendum est, ut ad obscuriores locutiones illustrandas de
manifestioribus sumantur exempla, et qusedam certarum sententiarum
testimonia dubitationem incertis auferant. — Augustinus de Doctrina
Christiana. Lib. ii, 14. Opera. Vol. iii. p. 24. edit. Benedict. Paris.
1696. Ubi autem apertius ponuntur, ibi discendum est quomodo in locis
intelligantur obscuris. — Ibid. Lib. iii. 87. p. 56.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 11
destitute of the Spirit of God ; as is proved most invincibly
by example of divers popes that have been heretics, and main-
tainors of such errors as are not now in controversy between
us (lest they should say we beg the prmciple), but of the
sect of the Arians, Monothehtes, Eutychians, Saducees, and
such other.
Martin. Another way is, to alter the very original text of the holy M7\rtinj 4.
scripture, by adding, taking away, or changing it here and there for somTwS^
their purpose. So did the Arians in sundry places, and the Nestorians "f the'verT
in the first epistle of St John, and especially Marcion, who was there- °'^^^'^^^ '^^^^t-
fore called Mus Ponticus, the mouse of Pontus, because he had gnawn Marcio. Ub.
1. in pnnc.
(as it were) certain places with his corruptions, whereof some are said XertuX lib. 5.
to remain in the Greek text until this day.
FulJce. The original text of the holy scriptm'e we alter Fulke, 4.
not, either by adding, taking away, or changing of any letter
or syllable, for any private pm'pose ; which were not only
a thing most wicked and sacrilegious, but also vain and im-
possible. For, seeing not only so many ancient copies of the
original text are extant in divers places of the world, which
we cannot, if we would, corrupt, and that the same are multi-
phed, by printing, into so many thousand examples ; we should
be rather mad than foohsh, if we did but once attempt such
a matter, for maintenance of any of our opinions. As also
it is incredible that Marcion, the mouse of Pontus, could
corrupt all the Greek copies in the world, (as Lindanus^, of
whom you borrowed that conceit, imagineth,) in those places
in which he is charged by Tertulhan. For Marcion's heresy
was not so generally received by the Greek church, that all
men would yield unto him ; neither was Tertulhan so sound
of judgment in the Latin church, that whatsoever he judged
to be a corruption in Marcion", must of necessity be so
taken. But if adding and detracting from the scripture be
proper notes of heretics, who can purge Stephen Gardiner
and Gregory Martin ? — the one, for adding unto a verse of
the psalm this pronoun se, himself, to prove the carnal pre-
sence, citing it thus, Escam se dedit timentibus evm, " He
gave himself to be meat to them that fear him ;" whereas
P William Lindanus, bom in 1525, at Dordrecht, a polemical writer
of the Romish Church, who has left many works of erudition written in
a pure style, but disfigured by the faults common to authors of that age.]
12
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
the words of the prophet, according to the Hebrew, Greek,
and Latin, are no more but, Escam dedit, " He hath
given meat\" &c. — the other, in his fond book of schism-,
citing tliis text out of 1 Cor. x. as many papists do against
the certainty of faith. Qui stat, mdeat no cadat^ " He that
standeth, let liim take heed he fall not ;" whereas not only
the truth of the Greek, but even the vulgar Latin translation
hath. Qui se existimat stare, " He that thinketh or supposeth
that he standeth, let him take heed that he fall not." But of
such additions and detractions, used by the Romish rats, far
worse than the mice of Pontus, we shall have more occasion
to speak hereafter.
Martin, 5. Martin. Another way is, to make false translations of the scriptures,
hereti^i'' for the maintenance of error and heresy. So did the Arians (as St Je-
transiation. Yo\n.e^ noteth in xxvi. Esa.) read and translate Proverb viii. Dominus
possedit. ' creavit me in initio viarum suarum, that is, "The Lord created me
'?^i^ in the beginning of his ways," so to make Christ, the wisdom of God,
a mere creature. St Augustine also, Lib. V. cont. Julian, c. 2, noteth it
irepi^uj- as the interpretation of some Pelagian, Gen. iii. Fecerunt sibi vestimenta,
fiai-a. £^j, pg).jgQ]ffi(if(i^ QY campestria, that is, " They made themselves gar-
""'•'13 ments ;" whereas the word of the scriptm-e is, breeches or aprons, pro-
Aug. ep. 89. per and peculiar to cover the secret parts. Again, the selfsame heretics
pec. mer. did read falsely, Rom. v. Regnavit mors ah Adam usque ad Moysen etiam
Im. T-ous ui) ^'^ eos qui peccaverunt in similitudinem prcevaricationis Adce ; that is,
dfiapTii- " Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even on them that sinned after the
ffavrai.
similitude of the prevarication of Adam;" to maintain their heresy
against original sin, that none were infected therewith, or subject to
death and damnation, but by sinning actually, as Adam did. Thus did
the old heretics.
FuLKE, 5. Fullce. As touching false and heretical translations, which
is the chief argument of this book, I doubt not but, by the
grace of God, to clear our Enghsh translators from any wilful
corruptions for the maintenance of any error or heresy ; such
Qi "Wherein (in the sacrament of the altar) God instituted me-
moriam mirabilium suorum, et escam se dedit timentibus euni ; that is
to say, ' a memory of liis marvels, and gave himself meat to them
that loviQgly fear him'." Gardiner's "Detection of the Devil's So-
pliistrie, wherein he robbeth the unlearned people of the true beUef
in the most blessed Sacrament of the aulter." London, 1546. fol. 69. b.
See Psal. cxi. 4, 5.]
P Martin's " Treatise of Schism, shewing that aU Catholics ought in
any wise to abstain altogether from heretical Conventicles, viz. their
Prayers, Sermons, &c." Douay, 1678.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 13
as were those of the Arians and Pelagians, which Gregory
Martin, as though he uttered some great piece of skill, doth
so diligently express. I shall have occasion also to shew,
that the papists themselves of our times, maintaining their
corrupt vulgar translation against the truth of the original
texts of Greek and Hebrew, are most guilty of such cor-
ruption and falsification; whereof although they be not the first
authors, yet, by obstinate defending of such errors, they may
prove worse than they which did first commit them. For
the authors of that vulgar translation might be deceived,
either for lack of exact knowledge of the tongues, or by
some corrupt and untrue copies which they followed, or else
perhaps that which they had rightly translated, by fault of
the writers and negligence of the times might be perverted :
but these men frowardly justifying all errors of that trans-'
lation, howsoever they have been brought in, do give plain
testimony, that they are not led with any conscience of God's
truth, but wilfully carried with purpose of maintaining their
own errors ; lest, if they did acknowledge the error of the
Romish church in that one point, they should not be able to
defend any one iota of their heresy, whose chief colour is the
credit and authority of that particular and false church, rather
than any reason or argument out of the holy scriptures, or
testimony of the most ancient christian and catholic church.
Martin. What these of our days? Is it credible that being so Mahtin 6
well warned by the condemnation and detestation of them, they also
would be as mad and as impious as those? Heretics, gentle reader,
be always like heretics ; and howsoever they differ in opinions or names,
yet in this point they agree, to abuse the scriptures for their pm-pose
by all means possibly. I will but touch four points of the five before
mentioned, because my purpose is to stay upon the last only, and to de-
cipher their corrupt translations. But if I would stand upon the other ^^
also, were it not easy to shew the manner of their* proceeding against protestants
the scriptures to have been thus : to deny some whole books and parts ists use the
of books, to call other some into question, to expound the rest at melm of ^^
their pleasure, to pick quarrels to the very origmal and canonical text, scriptures''^
to fester and infect the whole body of the bible with cankered trans-
lations ?
Fulke. It is very true, that so many heretics as pretend Fulke, 6.
the authority of the holy scriptures, abuse the same to their
own destruction; and no heretics worse than the antichris-
tians or papists : as partly liath been seen already in every
14 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
one of your five marks, and more may appear in those four
points which you will handle in the preface, because the
argument of your whole book is the fifth ; so that in the end
you shall be proved no wiser with your five points, than he
that came forth with his five eggs, and never a good of them
all. But you ask, if it were not easy for you to shew (if
you would stand upon them) that the protestants use all
the said five means of defacing the scripture ? I answer, 'No,
and that shall you see when demonstration is made, how vainly
you have laboured in the last point ; which howsoever you
would have it appear to be a sudden writing, of small travail,
by interlacing a few lines here and there against M. Whitaker ^
against me and some other ; yet it is evident, both by Bris-
tow's threatening and Campian's promise, that it hath been
a work of some years unto you; wherein, beside that you
are beholden much to Lindanus for divers quarrels against
Calvin, and to Sir Thomas More for many cavillations against
W. Tindal's translation, there is little worthy of so long
study and large promises as have gone before this diligent
discovery ; so that, if you will make the like trial in the rest,
you shall find them as hard to prove as this last.
Mahtin, 7. Martin. Did not Luther deny St James' epistle, and so contemn
it, that he called it an epistle of straw, and not worthy of an apostolical
Contrat. Spirit? Must I prove this to M. Whitaker, who would never have
Edm. Camp, ^jgj^g^ j^. g^ vehemently in the superlative degree for shame, if he had
Dfsc"ofme^' ^'^^ thought it more shame to grant it ? I need not go far for the
Lather ^in^' ^^^^er : ask M. Fulke, and he will flatly confess it was so. Ask Calvin,
Novo Test, in argum. ep. Jacohi. Ask Flaccus lUyricus, in argum. ep. Jacobi;
Praefat. and you shall perceive it is very true. I will not send you to the
catholic Germans and others, both of his own time and after, that wrote
against him in the question of justification : among whom not one omit-
teth this, being a thing so famous and infamous to the confusion of
that arch-heretic.
Fulke, 7. Fulke. I know not whether ever Luther denied St James'
epistle as unworthy of an apostohcal spirit; but I believe
[} William Whitaker, master of St John's, Cambridge, and Pro-
fessor of Divinity, born in 1547. Cardinal Bellarmine, his antagonist,
pronounced liim to be the most learned heretic he ever read. He
wrote among other treatises, "Ad Rationes Decern Edmundi Campiani
Jesuitse, quibus fretus certamen Anglicanse ecclesise ministris obtuht
in causa fidei, responsio Gulielmi Whitakeri. Londini. 1681." Re-
printed in Whitaker's Works, Genevse. 1610. Vol. i.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 15
you may take a twelvemonth's day more to prove it, as also
that he did so contemn it, that he called it an epistle of
straw. But M. Whitaker, which denied it so vehemently,
must ask of me, who most flatly confess (saith M. Martin)
that it was so. I pray you, sir, urge me not to confess
more than I kiiow, or ever knew. But you have confessed it
already in two prmted books, Eetent^. p. 32. Disc, of the
Rock, p. 307. In the first place cited there are these words:
" But to proceed : Luther denieth the epistle of St
James, because it is against his heresy of justifica-
tion BY faith only. We allow not Luther, neither did he
allow himself therein; for he retracteth it afterward." First,
those words of Luther's denial being printed in a diverse
letter, may testify sufficiently to every reasonable man, that
they are the objection of Bristow, and not the confession
of Fulke, who not simply admitteth them as true, but by
concession proveth that if they were true, yet Luther's opinion,
against which he himself hath written, ought not to pre-
judice him, and much less all other men that never held that
opinion. In the latter cited place are these words : "And as
toucliing the epistle of St James, it is a shameless slander of
him to say that the protestants reject it ; but we must hear
his reason. First, Luther calleth it a straw en epistle^. So
Luther called the pope supreme head of the church, and
the mass a sacrifice propitiatory. If protestants be charged
to hold whatsoever Luther sometime held, and after repented,"
\y A Retentive to stay good Christians in true faith and religion,
against the motives of Richard Bristow. Also a discovery of the dan-
gerous Rock of the Popish Church, commended by Nicholas Sander,
D. of Divinity. Done by Wm. Fulk«. 1580.]
P Campian, the Jesuit, states that the Reformer had characterised
the Epistle of James as " contentiosam, tumidam, aridam, stramineam,
et indignam spiritu apostolico." The Prefaces to the Argentine, Wir-
temburg, and Francfort editions do not however contain these words,
that of Jena alone does. Luther's opinion is exhibited in its truest
light by the following remarks: "Epistolam banc S. Jacobi, quamvis
rejectam a veteribus, tamen laudo, et pro utili ac commodo habeo."
And in his treatise De Captivitate Babylonica he thus alludes to it:
"Omitto quod hanc epistolam non esse apostoU Jacobi, nee apostolico
spiritu dignam, multi valde probabiliter asserant." See the question
examined more fuUy Ad Rationes Campiani. pp. 5 — 13. edit. 1581 ;
and in Whitaker's Works, Vol. i. p. 60. edit. 1610.]
16
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
&c. Who seeth not in these words, that I rehearse the
objection of Saunder, which is common to him with many
other papists ; which not discussing whether it be true or
no, but supposing it were as Saunder and the rest of the
papists do affirm, I shew that it is no good consequence
to charge all protestants with Luther's private opinion, which
perhaps he held sometime and after retracted, more than to
charge us with all opinions of papistry wliich he did hold,
before God opened his eyes to see the absurdity of them ?
And yet, if he had held that opinion, and never retracted
the same, he were not in worse case than Eusebius\ who in
plain words affirmeth, that the same epistle is a counterfeit
or bastard epistle, hb. 2, cap. 23. Do you not see now, how
flatly Master Fulke confesseth that it was so? Such con-
fessions as these are now and then extorted out of the an-
cient fathers' writings, which are not living to expound their
meanings. But I had thought Master Martin could have
discerned between a suppose or concession, and an absolute
assertion or a flat confession, especially of one whose writing
is plain enough, and beside is alive to interpret liimself, if
any ambiguity were therein. But be it that Master Martin
either would not, or could not, see in my writing any tiling else
but a flat confession of Luther's denying of St James' epistle,
and calling it an epistle of straw : of what forehead proceedeth
it, that he willeth Master Whitaker to ask Calvin^, in argum.
epist. Jacobi, whether Luther so spake of that epistle? — in
which argument Luther is not once named by Calvin ; so far
is it that he doth testify any such thing against Luther.
Only he saith, that some there are in these days which
think that epistle not worthy of authority ; which could not
P Toiavra Koi to. Kara rov ^laKajSov, ov ?; Trptonj rav ovofia^ofievav
KadoXiKcov {TTiaToXaiv elvai Xfyerai. Icrrtov be as vodevfTM fiiv' ov ttoXXoI
yovu rSdV naXaiiov aiiTrjs ffxvrjuovfvcrav, coy ov8e Ttjs \{yofi€in]s 'lov8a, fiias
Koi avTTJs ovarjs Ta>v eiTTo. Xeyofievav Kado\iKa>v. oficos 8e tafiev Kai ravras
fifTo. Tu>v XoiTrav iv TrXeicrTais 8e8r]^ocnevfiepas eKKXrjcriais. — Eusebii Pam-
phili Eccles. Hist. Lib. ii. c. 23. Opera. Vol. i. p. G6. edit. Valesii.]
Q Calvin's words are: "Hanc epistolam non sine certamine olini
receptam a multis ecclesiis fuisse ex Hieronynii Eusebiique testimonio
notum est. Sunt etiam hodie nonnuUi, qui earn auctoritate dignam non
censeant. Ego tamen, quia nuUam ejus repudiandae satis justam causam
video, libenter cam sine controversia amplector." — Argumentum cum
Job. Calvini Commentariis. p. 91. edit. Stephan. 1560.]
THE ANSWER TO THE TREFACE. l7
be understood of Luther, who long before Calvin wrote that
argument 'had forsaken that opinion, if ever he held any
such ; as all those Dutch bibles and testaments of Luther's
translation, m which those words so much baited at, and so
much sought for, are omitted, do give sufficient testimony.
What Flaccus lilyricus^ reporteth, who perhaps held that
opinion himself, and would father it upon Luther, I have
neither opportunity to seek, nor care to know. But how
great a matter it is, that all the popish Germans, and other,
who have written against Luther, do so spitefully gnaw upon,
I have learned at length by relation of Master Whitaker,
whom you send to ask of me ; who, after long search and
many editions turned over, at the length hghted upon a
Dutch testament, by likelihood one of the first that Luther
did set forth in the German tongue, in which he findeth
neither denial of St James' epistle to be canonical, nor af-
firmation that it is unworthy of an apostolical spirit; no,
nor that whereof there hath been so much babbhng of all
the papists, that he calleth it an epistle of straw simply
and in contempt, but only in comparison of the epistles of
Paul and Peter, and other books of the new testament ; the
excellency of which, one above another, after he hath shewed
in sundry degrees, at last he saith, the epistle of James in
comparison of these is straw, or like straw : which he saith
not in respect of the credit or authority thereof, but in regard
of the argument or matter handled therein ; which all wise and
godly men will confess to be not so excellent and necessary,
as the matter of the holy gospels and epistles of some other
of the apostles, namely of Paul, Peter, and John. Our
Saviour Christ himself, John iii. 12, calleth the doctrine of
regeneration, in such plain manner as he uttered it to Nico-
demus, earthly things, in comparison of other greater mysteries,
which he could have expressed in more heavenly and spu^itual
sort. " If I have spoken to you," saith he, " of earthly
tilings, and you have not beheved, how, if I should speak to
you of heavenly things, will you beheve?" Were not he an
honest and a wise man, that upon these words of Christ,
P Mathias Flack, or (as the name was latinised, from Albona in Istria,
a part of ancient Illyria, where he was bom in 1521,) Flaccus Illyricus,
was a famous protestant theologian. He studied under Luther and Me-
lancthon, and became a most formidable enemy to the Church of Rome.]
r 1 2
[fulke.J
18 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
spoken in comparison, would conclude by his authority, that
regeneration were a contemptible matter, a thing not spi-
ritual, not heavenly, but simply and altogether earthly ? And
yet with as good reason, for ought I see or can learn of
Luther's words concerning this matter, he might so infer, as
the papists do enforce the hke against Luther. Wherefore it is
nothing else but a famous and infamous cavillation, to the
confusion of all the papists which write against Luther, that
no one of them omitteth upon so false and frivolous a ground
to slander liim so heinously, and to charge all protestants
with his assertion so enviously : wliich, if it were his, should
not be so evil as other cathoUc writers have affirmed of
tliat epistle, and therefore not sufficient to charge him, and
much less others, with heresy ; but being not his simple affir-
mation, yet because it hath been offensively taken, he himself
hath put it out and given it over. 0 what a stir would
they keep, if they had any weighty matter of truth to bur-
then him withal !
Martin, 8. Martin. To let this pass : Toby, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees,
Cone. Cart. 3. are they not most certainly rejected? And yet they were allowed and
can. 4/. received for canonical by the same authority that St James' epistle was.
Argu. in This epistle the Calvinists are content to admit, because so it pleased
Calvin : those books they reject, because so also it pleased him. And
why did it so please Calvin ? Under pretence forsooth, that they were
once doubted of, and not taken for canonicaL But is that the true
Whjtak.i cause indeed ? How do they then receive St James' epistle as canoni-
Fbid.' cal, having been before doubted of also, yea, as they say, rejected ?
FuLKE, 8. Fulke. You may well let it pass, for it is not worth the
time you spend in writing of it ; and if you had been wise,
you would utterly have omitted it. But what say you of
Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees, most certainly by
us rejected? They were allowed (you say) for canonical by
the same authority that St James' epistle was. And tliink
you that St James' epistle was never allowed for canonical
before the third coimcil of Carthage ? For of the other it
is certain, they were never received by the chm^ch of the
Israehtes before Christ's coming, nor of the apostolic and
pi'imitive church for more than 300 years after, as both Eu-
sebius out of Origenes, and the council of Laodicea, Can. 59.
confirmed afterward by the sixth general council of Constan-
\} Whitakeri ad Rationes Campiani Responsic]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 19
tinople, sheweth for the Greek church, and St Jerome in ^^^- « cap-
Prologo Galeato^ for the Latin church. As for the provmcial
council of Carthage, holden by forty-four bishops of Africa,
if we were bound to receive it for these books, we must
also acknowledge five books of Salomon, which in the same
council are authorised, whereas the church never knew but
of three. And although the book of Wisdom should be as-
cribed to Salomon, there could be but four. Again, how
they understand the word canonical, it may be gathered both
out of the words of the same canon, where they give none
other reason of the approbation of all those books of scrip-
ture, but that they have received them of their fathers to be
read in the church ; and also out of St Augustine, who was De doot.
one present at the same council ; which after he hath declared 2, cap. 8.
how a man should discern the canonical scriptures from other
writings by following the authority of the catholic churches,
especially those that have deserved to have apostolic sees,
and to receive their epistles, he addeth further : Tenehit igitur
hunc modum in scripturis canonicis, ut eas quce ah omnibus
accipiuntur ecclesiis catholicis, prceponaf eis quas qucedam
non accipiunt ; in eis vero quw non accipiuntur ah omni-
bus^ prwponat eas, quas plures gravioresque accipiunt^ eis
quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesioe tenent. Si
autem alias invenerit a plurihus, alias a qraviorihus haheri,
quanquam hoc invenire non possit, asqualis tamen auctoritatis
eas hahendas puto. Totus autem canon scripturarum, in quo
istam considerationem versandam dicimus, his I'lbris continetur.
He shall hold therefore tliis mean in the canonical scrip-
tures, that he prefer those which are received of all catholic
churches, before those scriptm-es wliich some churches do
not receive. But in those which are not received of all, let
him prefer those scriptures which the greater number and
graver churches do receive, before those which chm'ches fewer
in number and of less authority do hold. But if he shall
P Non idem ordo est apud Grsecos, qui integi'e sapiunt et fidem
rectam sectantur, epistolarum septem, quse canonicse nuncupantur, qui
in Latinis codicibus invenitur. Quod quia Petrus primus est in numero
apostolorum, primae sint etiam ejus epistolae in ovdine ceterarum. Sed
sicut evangelistas dudum ad veritatis lineam correximus ; ita has proprio
ordini, Deo nos juvante, reddidimus. Est enim prima earum una Jacobi;
Petri duae ; Johannis tres ; et Judse una. — Hieronym. Prolog. Septem
Epistolarum Canonicarum. Opera. Vol. i. p. 1667.]
2 — 2
20 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
find some scriptures to be had of fewer churches and other
some of graver churches, although you cannot find this thing,
yet I think they are to he accounted of equal authority.
Now the whole canon of scriptures in which we say this
consideration must be occupied is contained in these books :
Five books of Moses, that is Genesis, Exodus, &c. By this
saying of Augustine it is manifest, that he calleth canonical
scriptures, not only those books that ought of necessity to
be received of all churches ; but also such as were received
of some, and of some were not ; in which number were these
books of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees, wliich
by his own rule were not to be received as of absolute and
sovereign authority, because the apostolic churches of Asia
and Europe, and those of gravest authority, among which
was the church of Rome in that time, did not receive them ;
as witnesseth not only St Jerome, a priest of Rome, but
also Ruffinus of Aquileia, in symbolo^, who both declare what
books were received in their churches as canonical, and of
irrefragable authority to build principles of faith upon them,
and what books were admitted only to be read for instruc-
tion of manners. And therefore, according to the rule of
Augustine and testimony of the ancient fathers, and because
it consenteth with the rest of the scriptures, and not for
Calvin's pleasure, we receive the epistle of St James, though
it hath not been always and of all churches received. Con-
cerning the name of Calvinists, as of all other nick-names,
that it pleaseth you of your charity to bestow upon us, it
shall suffice to protest once for all, that we acknowledge
none other name of our profession, but Christians and catho-
hcs ; and that we have neither received that epistle, nor
rejected the other, because it pleased Calvin so. This may
Anno 1537' ^6^^® ^^r a clcar demonstration, that in the first English^
\} Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt qui non canonici, sed
ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt : ut est Sapientia Salomonis, et
alia Sapientia quae dicitur filii Syrach, qui liber apud Latinos hoc ipso
generali vocabulo Ecclesiasticus appellatur; quo vocabulo non auctor
libelli, sed scrip turae qualitas cognominata est. Ejusdem ordinis est
libellus Tobife, et Judith, et Machabaeorum libri. — Expositio in Sym-
bolum Apostolorum Ruffini. p. 397, 398. ed. Aid. 1563.]
P In the bible of 1537, known under the name of the translator,
Thomas Matthew, tliis is the case. Also in Coverdale's bible of 1537,
4to., imprynted in Southwarke by James Nycolson.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 21
bibles that were printed under the name of Thomas Matthew,
before Calvin wrote any word of the rejection of those books,
or of receiving of the other, they are called Apocrypha, and
printed with other of that mark by themselves, and the epistle
of St James without any question acknowledged to be one of
the canonical epistles ; whereas Calvin's institution was first
printed anno 1536, and his argument upon St James' epistle,
1551. You may see what honest dealing the papists use to
bring the truth into discredit, and the professors thereof into
hatred with the simple and unlearned people, bearing them in
hand, that we have no cause to receive or refuse books of scrip-
tm'e, but Calvin's pleasure. But the God of truth will one day
reward these impudent hars and shameless slanderers.
Well, let us now see under what pretence it pleased Cal- .
vin to reject these books : " Under pretence forsooth, (saith
Martin,) that they were once doubted of, and not taken for
canonical." I pray you. Sir, where doth Calvin pretend that
only cause ? In his Instit. hb. iii. c. 5. sec. 8, he allegeth
divers other causes touching the books of Machabees, as every
man that will may read. Shame you nothing to forge such
manifest untruths, and that in such matters as you may be
convinced in them by ten thousand witnesses? What credit
shall be given to you in matters that consist upon your own
bare testimony, when you force not to feign of other men that
wherein every man may reprove you ? And as for the only
pretence you speak of, Calvin doth so httle esteem it, that
notwithstanding the same, he doubteth not to receive the
epistle of St James, because it is agreeable to the whole body
of the canonical scripture; as, if you had read his argument
upon that epistle, you might easUy have perceived.
Martin. Mark, gentle reader, for thy soul's sake, and thou shalt Martin, 9.
find that heresy, and only heresy, is the cause of their denying these m.' w^'ita-
books ; so far, that against the orders and hierarchies and particular worfs'con-^
patronages of angels one of them writeth thus in the name of the th™"own
rest : " We pass not for that Raphael of Toby, neither do we acknow- ^o'^k'^^„hich
ledge those seven angels which he speaketh of; all this is far from ^|f''^°'^''^'{jj
canonical scriptures, tliat the same Raphael recordeth, and savoureth of Tobit and
,, Ecclesiasti-
I wot not what superstition. ' Against free-will thus : " I little care cus to be
for the place of Ecclesiasticus, neither will I believe free-will, though holy scrip-
he affirm an hundred times, that before men is life and death." And other. Do
\y Ad Rationes Campiani Responsio, p. 17.]
22 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
thev read against prayer for the dead, and intercession of saints, thus : " As for
churches the book of the Machabees, I do care less for it than for the other.
and super- Judas' dream concerning Onias I let pass as a dream." This is their
books'for reverence of the scriptures, Avhich have universally been reverenced for
ture oris Canonical in the church of God above 1100 years. Con. Cart. 3. and
that thus'*" particularly of many fathers long before, Aug. de doct. Christ. Lib. ii.
disfjraceth q^ g^
their order
of^daiiyser- iP^/i^g. The mouth that lieth kUleth the soul. The reader
FuLKE, 9. jnay think you have small care of his soul's health, when
by such impudent lying you declare that you have so small
regard of your own. But what shall he mark ? " That
heresy, &c." You were best say that Eusebius, Jerome, Ruf-
fine, and all the churches in their times, were heretics, and
that only heresy was the cause of their denial of these books.
For such reasons as moved them move us, and something
also their authority. But how prove you that only heresy
moveth us to reject them? Because M. Whitaker against
the orders, and hierarchies, and particular patronages of
angels, writeth in the name of the rest, that " we pass not,"
&c. Take heed, lest upon your bare surmise you behe him,
where you say he writeth in the name of the rest ; as in the
next section following you say, he writeth in the name of both
the universities, for which I am sure he had no commission
from either of them ; although he did write that wliich may
well be avouched by both the universities ; yet I know his
modesty is such, as he will not presume to be advocate for
both the universities, and much less for the whole church,
except he were lawfully called thereto. This is a common
practice of you papists, to bear the world in hand, that what-
soever is Avritten by any of us in defence of the truth, is set
forth in the name of all the rest, as though none of us could
say more in any matter than any one of us hath written ; or
that if any one of us chance to slip in any small matter,
though it be but a wrong quotation, you might open your
wide slanderous mouths against the whole church for one
man's particular offence. Now touching any thing that M.
Whitaker hath written, you shall find him sufficient to main-
tain it against a stronger adversary than you are ; and there-
fore I wUl meddle the less in his causes. And for the orders
and patronage or protection of angels by God's appointment,
we have sufficient testimony in the canonical scriptures, that
we need not the uncertain report of Tobie's book to instruct
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 23
US what to think of them. But as for the hierarchies and
patronage of angels, that many of you papists have imagined
and written of, neither the canonical scriptures, nor yet the apo-
cryphal books now in controversy, are sufficient to give you
warrant. The like I say of free will, prayer for the dead,
and intercession of saints. But it grieveth you that those
apocryphal scriptures, which have been universally received
for canonical in the church of God above 1100 years, should
find no more reverence among us. Still your mouth runneth
over. For ia the time of the canon of the council of Car-
thage 3. which you quote, these books were not universally
reverenced as canonical. And Augustine himself, speaking
of the book of Machabees, Cont. 2. Gaud.^ Ep. c. 23. con-
fesseth that the Jews account it not as the Law, and the
Prophets, and the Psalms, to which our Lord giveth testi-
mony as to his witnesses, saying, "It behoveth that all things
should be fulfilled which are written in the Law, and in the
Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me ; but it is received
of the church not unprofitably, if it be soberly read or heard."
This writeth St Augustine, when he was pressed with the
authority of that book by the Donatists, which defended that
it was lawful for them to kill themselves by example of
Razis, who is by the author of that book commended for
that fact. He saith, " it is received not unprofitably," and
immediately after, "especially for those Machabees that suffered
patiently horrible persecution for testimony of God's rehgion,
to encourage Cliristians by their example." Finally, he
addeth a condition of the receiving it, "if it be soberly read
or heard." These speeches declare, that it was not received
[} Et hanc quidem scripturam, quas'appellatur MachabjEorum, non
habent Judaei sicut legem et prophetas et psalmos, quibus Dominus
testimonium perliibet tamquam testibus suis, dicens, Oportebat impleri
omnia quse scripta sunt in lege et prophetis et in psalmis de me: sed
recepta est ab ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie legatur vel audiatur,
maxima propter illos Machabaeos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres
a persecutoribus tam indigna atque horrenda perpessi sunt; ut etiam
hinc populus Christianus adverteret, quoniam non sunt condignse pas-
siones hujus temporis ad futuram gloriam quae revelabitur in nobis, pro
quibus passus est Christus, si tanta patientissime pertulerunt jiro lege
quam dedit Deus per famulum hominibus illis pro quibus nondum tra-
diderat Filium. — Augustin. contra Gaudentium Donatist. Episc. Lib. i.
cap. 38. Opera. Vol. ix. p. 656-6.]
24 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
without all controversy as the authentical word of God : for
then should it be received necessarily, and because it is God's
word especially, and howsoever it be read or heard, it is
received of the church, not only necessarily, but also profit-
ably. Beside this, even the decree of Gelasius, which was
near 100 years after that council of Carthage, alloweth but
one book of the Machabees. Wherefore the universal reve-
rence that is boasted of cannot be justified.
But M. Whitaker is charged in the margin to condemn
the service-book, which appointeth these books of Toby and
Ecclesiasticus to be read for holy scripture as the other.
And where find you that in the service-book, M. Martin?
Can you speak nothing but untruths ? If they be appointed
to be read, are they appointed to be read for holy scripture,
and for such scripture as the other canonical books are ?
The service-book appointeth the litany, divers exhortations
and prayers, yea, homihes to be read : are they therefore to
be read for holy and canonical scriptures ? But you ask, Do
they read in their churches apocryphal and superstitious books
for holy scripture ? No, verily. But of the name apocryphal
I must distinguish, which sometimes is taken for all books
read of the church, wliich are not canonical ; sometime for
such books only as are by no means to be suffered, but are to
be hid or abolished. These books therefore in controversy,
with other of the same sort, are sometimes called Hagiographa,
holy writings, as of St ievornQ prcefat. in lib. Tobiw; some-
times Ecclesiastica, Ecclesiastical writings, and so are they
inexposi- called of Ruffinus. Because (saith he) they were appointed
tione sym- _ ^ / u j. ±
^"- by our elders to be read in the churches, but not to be
brought forth to confirm authority of faith : but other scrip-
tures they named apocryphal, wliich they would not have to
be read in the churches. So saith St Jerome in prcsfat. in
Proverb. " Even as the church readeth indeed the books of
Judith, Tobias, and the Machabees, but yet receiveth them
not among the canonical scriptures; so let it read these two
books (of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom) for the edifying of the
people, not for the confirmation of the authority of ecclesi-
astical doctrines." These ancient writers shall answer for our
service-book, that although it appoint these writings to be
read, yet it doth not appoint them to be read for canonical
scriptures. Albeit they are but sparingly read, by order of
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 25
our service-book, which for the Lord's day, and other festival
days, commonly appointeth the first lesson out of the canonical
scriptures. And as for superstition, although M. Whitaker
say, that some one thing savoureth of I know not what super-
stition, he doth not by and by condemn the whole book for
superstitious, and altogether unworthy to be read ; neither can
he thereby be proved a puritan, or a disgracer of the order of
daUy service,
Martin. As for parts of books, do they not reject certain pieces MAinrN,
of Daniel and of Hester, because they are not in the Hebrew, which ^^•
reason St Augustine rejecteth; or because they were once doubted of
by certain of the fathers 1 by which reason some part of St Mark's
and St Luke's gospel might now also be called in controversy, spe-
cially if it be true which M. Whitaker by a figurative speech more
than insinuateth, That he cannot see by what right that which once p. lo,
was not in credit should by time win authority. Forgetting himself
by and by, and in the very next lines admitting St James' epistle, m. Whita-
though before doubted of, for canonical scriptures, imless they receive ^^^ " ^'
it but of their courtesy, and so may receive it when it shall please
them, which must needs be gathered of his words, as also many other
notorious absurdities, contradictions, and dumb blanks. Which only
to note were to confute M. Whitaker by himself, being the answer
for both universities.
Fulke. As for pieces of Daniel and of Esther, we reject Fulke,10.
none ; but only we discern that which was written by Daniel in
deed, from that wliich is added by Theodotion the false Jew, and
that which was written by the Spirit of God of Esther, from
that which is vainly added by some Greekish counterfeiter. But
the reason why we reject those patches (you say) is because
they are not in the Hebrew, wliich reason St Augustine re-
jecteth. Here you cite St Augustine at large, without quota-
tion in a matter of controversy. But if we may trust you that
St Augustine rejecteth this reason, yet we may be bold upon
St Jerome's authority to reject whatsoever is not found in
the canon of the Jews, written in Hebrew or Chaldee : for
whatsoever was such, St Jerome did thrust through with a
spit or obelisk, as not worthy to be received. Witness hereof
St Augustine himself, Epist. ad Hier} 8 and 10, in which he
\} Petimus ergo, et nobiscum petit omnis Africanarum ecclesiarum
studiosa societas, ut interpretandis eorum libris, qui Grsce scripturas
nostras quam optime tractaverunt, curara atque operam impendere non
graveris. Potes enim efficere, ut nos quoque habcamus tales illos viros.
26 THB ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
dissuaded him from translating the Bcriptures of the Old
Testament out of the Hebrew tongue, after the seventy inter-
preters ; whose reasons as they were but frivolous, so they
are derided by St Jerome, who, being learned in the Hebrew
and Chaldee tongues, refused to be taught by Augustine, that
was ignorant in them, what was to be done in translations out
of them. Also Jerome himself^ testifieth, that Daniel in the
Hebrew hath neither the story of Susanna, nor the hymn of
the three children, nor the fable of Bel and the Dragon :
wliich we, (saith he,) because they are dispersed throughout
the whole world, have added, setting a spit before them,
which thrusteth them through, lest we should seem among
the ignorant to have cut off a great part of the book. The
like he writeth of the vain additions that were in the vulgar
edition unto the book of Esther, both in the preface, and
after the end of that which he translated out of the Hebrew.
There are other reasons also, beside the authority of St Jerome,
that move us not to receive them. As that in the story of
Susanna, magistrates and judgment of life and death are
attributed to the Jews being in captivity of Babylon, which
hath no similitude of truth. Beside, out of the first chapter
et unum potissimum, quern tu libentius in tuis Uteris sonas. De ver-
tendis autem in Latinam linguam Sanctis Uteris canonicis laborare te
noUem, nisi eo modo quo Job interpretatus es ; ut signis adhibitis quid
inter banc tuam et Septuagiuta, quorum est gravissima auctoritas, inter-
pretationcm distet, appareat. — Augustin. ad Hieron. Ep. xxviii. Opera.
Vol. 11. p. 46.
Ego sane te mallem Grsecas potius canonicas nobis interpretari scrip-
turas, quae Septuaginta interpretum perhibentur. Perdurum erit enim,
si tua interpretatio per muUas ecclesias frequentius coeperit lectitari,
quod a Graecis ecclesiis Latinse ecclesiae dissonabunt, maxime quia facUe
contradictor convincitur Graeco prolato Ubro, id est liaguae notissimae. —
Augustin. Lxxi. Epist. ad Hieron. Opera. Vol. ii. p. 160.]
[^ Cui et Eusebius et ApoUinarius pari sententia responderunt: Susannae
Belisque ac Draconis fabulas non contineri in Hebraico ; sed partem esse
prophetiae Abacuc filii Jesu de tribu Levi, sicut juxta lxx. interpretes
in titulo ejusdem Belis fabulae ponitur: Homo quidam eratsacercbs, nomine
Daniel, filius Abda. conviua regis Babylonis : quum Danielem et tres pue-
ros de tribu Juda fuisse sancta scriptura testetur. Unde et nos ante
annos plurimos quum verteremus Danielem, has visiones obelo prtenota-
vimus, significantes eas in Hebraico non haberi. — Hieronymi Explanatio
in Danielem Prophetam. Opera. Tom. i. p. 1074. Augustini Epist. ad
Hieronymum, lxx. p. 611. Hieronym. Opera. Vol. iv. Hieronymi
Epist. ad Augustinum, lxxi v. pp. 626, 627.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
27
of the true Daniel it is manifest, that Daniel being a young
man was carried captive into Babylon in the days of Nebu-
chadnezzar ; but in this counterfeit story Daniel is made a
young child in the time of Astyages, which reigned immediately
before Cyrus of Persia. Likewise in the story of Bel and the
Dragon, Daniel is said to have lived with the same king
Cyrus ; and after, when he was cast into the lions' den, the
prophet Habakkuk was sent to him out of Jewry, who pro-
phesied before the first coming of the Chaldees, and therefore
could not be alive in the days of Cyrus, which was more than
seventy years after. The additions unto the book of Esther,
in many places, bewray the spirit of man ; as that they are
contrary to the truth of the story, containing vain repetitions,
and amphfications of that which is contained in the true
history ; and that which most manifestly convinceth the for-
gery, that in the epistle of Artaxerxes, cap. 16, Haman is
called a Macedonian, which in the true story is termed an
Agagite, that is an Amalekite, whereas the Macedonians had
nothing to do with the Persians many years after the death
of Esther and Haman. I omit that in the cap. 15, ver. 12,
the author maketh Esther to lie unto the king, in saying that
his countenance was fuU of all grace ; or else he heth liimself,
V. 17, where he saith, the king beheld her in the vehemency
of his anger, and that he was exceeding terrible.
As for other reasons, which you suppose us to follow, be-
cause these parcels were once doubted of by certain of the
fathers, it is a reason of your own making, and therefore you
may confute it at your pleasure. But " if that be true, which
Master Wliitaker by a figurative speech doth more than
insinuate, part of St Mark's and St Luke's gospel may also
be called in controversy." Why, what saith M. Whitaker?
Marry, " that he cannot see by what right that which once
was not in credit should by time win authority." But
when, I pray you, was any part of St Mark or St Luke out
of credit? If any part were of some person doubted of,
doth it follow that it was not at all in credit? You reason
profoundly, and gather very necessarily: as hkewise, that
he " forgetteth himself in the very next lines, admitting St
James' epistle (though before doubted of) for canonical."
Will ye say that St James' epistle was once not in credit,
or not worthy of credit (for that is his plain meaning), be-
28
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
cause it was doubted of, yea, rejected of some ? Yea, you say
it " must needs be gathered of his words," that we receive it
but of courtesy, and so may refuse it when it pleaseth us.
Demonstrate this in a syllogism out of his words, if you can,
or all the whole rabble of Rheims, if you be able. For my
part I can but marvel at your bold assertions, and abhor
your impudent enforcements. As for other contradictions,
notorious absurdities, dumb blanks, and I know not what
other monsters you feign unto him, without all proof or par-
ticular declaration, all wise men see how easy a matter it is
to rail and slander in generals ; and when vou dare come to
particulars, I doubt not but the world shall see your vanity
so detected by M. Whitaker himself, that you shall have httle
joy thus insolently to deface liis godly and learned writings.
It had been more than time that his book had been confuted,
wliich hath been abroad a year and a half almost \ if you can
with such facility, by only noting such matters, shew that he
confuteth himself. But somewhat you must say afar off, to
save your credit with your disciples, to keep them play for
the time ; while with long study and great travaU you are
crowding out great trifles.
Maetin,
11.
In the argu-
ment bib.
an. 1579.
t) irpoi
efipaiovi
£TrL(TTo\ll
IlavXov.
Martin. For the second point, which is not the gross denial of
books, but yet calHng of them in question, moving scruples about them,
and diminishing their authority and credit, I will go no further than
St Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews; which I will not ask why they doubt
of, or rather think it not to be St Paul's, for they will tell me, be-
cause it was once in doubt (not considering that it was in like man-
ner doubted whether it were canonical, and yet they will not now
deny but it is canonical) ; but I must ask them, and request them to
make a reasonable answer, why in their English bible of the years
1579 and 1580, they presume to leave out St Paul's name out of the
very title of the said epistle, which name is in the Greek, and in
Beza's Latin translation, both which they profess to follow. See the
title of the New Testament, anno 1580. Doth not the title tell them
that it is St Paul's ? Why seek they further ; or why do they change
the title, striking out St Paul's name, if they meant to deal simply
and sincerely ? and what an heretical peevishness is this, because Beza
telleth them of one obscure Greek copy that hath not Paul's name,
and' only one, that they will rather follow it, than all other copies both
Greek and Latin ! I report me to all indifferent men of common sense,
whether they do it not ta diminish the credit of the epistle.
[' Whitaker's Answer to Campian was printed in 1581.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 29
Fulke. Now concerning the second point, which is caUing Fulke,
of some books into controversy, or moving scruples about them, l^-
to diminish their credit or authority, whether you be guilty
of that crime rather than we, I have somewhat noted before.
But with what evidence you are able to charge us, it cometh
now to be considered: you will go no further than the epistle
to the Hebrews^. You may be ashamed to have gone so far;
for of all books of the New Testament, there is none that
we might worse spare to confound your blasphemous heresies
than that epistle, which is the very mall to beat into powder
the abominable idol of your mass, and your sacrilegious priests
hood serving to the same. Wherefore it is without all colour
that you charge us to seek to diminish the credit of that
epistle. But you " will not ask why we doubt of, or rather
think it not to be St Paul's, because we will tell you, that it
was once in doubt." If you acknowledge that the author of
this epistle was once in question, you clear us of moving
scruples about it, or calling it in question, which was your
first charge. Let Eusebius, Jerome, and other ancient writers, Euseb. itb.
. , 6. cap. 25.
bear that blame, if it be blame- worthy to tell what other men's ^'X^J""-
opinions have been in such a matter ; some holding that it 'o"*- ^•
was written by St Luke, some by St Barnabas, some by St
Clemens. But you must wit, if you will, that they which at
this day doubt of the writer thereof, or else think it not of
St Paul's penning, have other reasons to lead them, than
P The argument to " the Epistle to the Hebrewes," in the edition of
the bible printed at Edinburgh, 1579, (which is a reprint of the Geneva
bible of 1560,) commences thus, as indeed it does in the edition of 1557»
and those printed by Barker, 1578, and 1582. "Forasmuche as divers,
bothe of the Greke writers and Latine, witnesse, that the ■wi'iter of
this epistle for juste causes wolde not "have his name knowen, it were
curiosite of our parte to labour muche therein. For seeing the Spirit of
God is the autor thereof, it diminisheth nothing the autoritie, althogh
we knowe not with what penne he wrote it. Whether it were Paul (as
it is not like), or Luke, or Barnabas, or Clement, or some other, his
chiefe purpose is to persuade unto the Ebrewes, (whereby he principally
meaneth them that abode at Jerusalem, and under them all the rest of
the Jewes,) that Christ Jesus was not only the redemer, but also that at
his comming all ceremonies must have an end," &c.
In Coverdale's bible, 1537, it bears the title of St Paul's Epistle to the
Hebrews; in Matthew's bible, 1537; in Tavemer's, 1539; in Day's bible,
1651 ; in the Bishops' bible, 1584, and in Cranmer's bible, 1562. The omis-
sioil seems to be peculiar to the Anglo-Genevese Version.]
In Isai. lib.
.'1. cap. fi. in
30 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
only because it was doubted of. For beside those reasons
which they had, which of old time doubted of the writer
thereof, as the diversity of the style, and inscription thereof,
and manner of reasoning, they have also observed something
out of the epistle itself, which seemeth to argue, that it was
not written by St Paul : as that in the beginnuig of the 2nd
chapter he saith, " The doctrine of salvation was confirmed
to us by them that heard it, after it was first spoken by the
Lord himself;" which seemeth to agree with the profession of
St Luke in the beginning of his gospel ; whereas St Paul
denieth " that he learned his gospel of men, but only by reve-
lation of Jesus Christ." Gal. i. 12. But of all them that
doubt, or think it not to be St Paul's epistle, there is not
one that doubteth of the authority thereof, but that it is
equal with the epistle to the Komans, or the gospel of St
John : although m the Latin church, as St Jerome^ testifieth,
Matt'.^iib. 5. it hath been doubted whether it were canonical. The cause
cap. ili.
[} Nam et Paulus in epistola sua quae scribitur ad Hebrseos (licet
de ea multi Latinorum dubitent). — Comment. Hieronymi in Matthaei
cap. 26. Opera. Vol. iv. pp. 125, 126.
Ac primum solvenda est ilia quaestio, quae nobis objici potest : quare
Apostolus Paulus cum Hebraeis disputans non juxta Hebraicum, quod
rectum esse cognoverat, sed juxta lxx. sit loquutus? Evangelistam
Lucam tradunt veteres ecclesiae tractatores medicine artis fuisse scien-
tissimum ; et magis Graecas literas scisse quam Hebraeas. Unde et
sermo ejus tam in Evangelio, quam in Actibus Apostolorum, id est,
in utroque volumine comptior est, et secularem redolet eloquentiam ;
magisque testimoniis Graecis utitur quam Hebraeis. Matthaeus autem
et Johannes, quorum alter HebriEO, alter Graeco sermone evangelia
texuerunt, testimonia de Hebraico proferunt : ut est illud, Ex JEgypto
vocavi filium meum. Et, Quoniam Nazareus vocabitur. Et, Flumina
de ventre ejus fluent aqiue vivce. Et, Videhunt in quern compunxerunt,
et cetera his similia. Pauli quoque idcirco ad Hebraeos Epistolae con-
tradicitur, quod ad Hebraeos scribens utatur testimoniis quae in Hebraeis
voluniinibus non habentur. Quod si aliquis dixerit, Hebraeos libros
postea a Judaeis esse falsatos, audiat Origenem quid in octavo volumine
explanationum Isaiae huic respondeat quaestiunculae, quod nunquam
Dominus et Apostoli, qui cetera crimina arguunt in Scribis et Pharisaeis,
de hoc crimine quod erat maximum reticuissent. Sin autem dixerint,
post adventum Domini Salvatoris et praedicationem Apostolorum libros
Hebraeos fuisse falsatos, cachinnum tenere non potero, ut Salvator et
Evangelistae et Apostoli ita testimonia protulerint, ut Judaei postea fal-
saturi erant. — Commentar. Hieronymi in Isaite Prophet. Lib. iii. cap. 6.
Opera. Vol. iii. pp. 6-3, 64.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 81
seemeth to be the heresy of the Novatians, which abused a
text out of the 6th chapter against remission of sins committed
after grace received, which we shew was no sufficient cause
to refuse so divine an epistle, seeing the apostle speaketh
not of particular faults, which are common to the faitliful
oftentimes every day, but of an utter apostasy and falling
clean away from the truth of the gospel once known and
professed into an horrible contempt and persecuting of the
same. But we must " make you a reasonable answer, why in
the EngUsh bibles printed 1579 and 1580, we presume to
leave out St Paul's name out of the very title of the said
epistle ; which name is in the Greek and Beza's Latin trans-
lation, wliich we profess to follow." I answer without any
presumption, that that which is uncertain we spare to affirm.^
Example we have, not only that ancient Greek copy whereof
Beza speaketh, which leaveth out the name of Paul, but also
divers printed books in which that name is left out. Beside
it is certain, that title was not of ancient time universally
added. For St Jerome, in Catalogo scriptorum ecclesiast., after
he hath recited all the epistles of St Paul, at length he cometh
to this epistle, Epistola autem quce fertur ad Hebrceos^ &c.
But the epistle wliich is called unto the Hebrews, is not
thought to be his, for the difference of the style and speech;
but either written by Barnabas, as TertulUan^ holdeth, or by
Luke the Evangehst, as some men tliink, or by Clemens, that
after was bishop of the Roman church, whom they say to
have ordered and adorned the sentences of Paul in his own
speech, or else truly, because Paul did write unto the Hebrews,
and because of the envy of his name among them he cut off
the title in the beginning of the salutation. These things
considered, what need those tragical exclamations in so trifling
a matter ? " Doth not the title tell it is St Paul's ? why
strike they out St Paul's name ? what an heretical peevishness
is this !" For lack of good matter, you are driven to loud
clamours against us ; but I will even conclude in your own
P Exstat enim et Bamabse titulus ad Hebraeos, adeo satis aucto-
ritatis viro, ut quern Paulus juxta se constituent in abstinentia tenore:
Aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potestatem 1 Et
utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabse illo apocrypho pastore
moechorum. — Tertullian. de Pudicitia. Opera, p. 741. edit. Rigaltii,
1641. cap. 20. edit. Semler. Vol. iv. p. 427.]
32 THE ANSWER TO THE PUEFACE.
words : " I report me to all indifferent men of common sense,
whether we do it to diminish the credit of the epistle," which
of all St Paul's epistles we might least miss, when we come
to dispute against your popish sacrifice and sacrificing priest-
hood ; or whether you do not craftily move a scruple in the
minds of simple persons, to make them doubt of the authority
of that epistle, (whose double cannon-shot you are not able
to bear when it is thundered out against you,) imder colour
that it is not of sound credit among ourselves, that use it
against you ; which of all the lies that ever Satan invented,
and taught you to utter, is one of the most abominable.
Martin, Martin. I know very well that the authority of canonical scrip-
^ • ture standeth not upon tlie certainty of the author; but yet to be Paul's
or not Paul's, apostolical or not apostolical, maketh a great difference
of credit and estimation. For what made St James' epistle doubted of
sometime, or the second of St Peter, and the rest, but that they were
not thought to be the epistles of those apostles? This Luther saw
very well, when he denied St James' epistle to be James the apostle's
writing. If titles of books be of no importance, then leave out Mat-
thew, Mark, Luke, and John, leave out Paul in his other epistles also,
and you shall much pleasure the Manichees and other old heretics:
and if the titles make no difference, urge no more the title of the
Apocalypse, St John the Divine, as though it were not St John's the
Evangelist, and you shall much displeasure some heretics now-a-days.
Briefly, most certain it is, and they know it best by their own usual
doings, that it is a principal way to the discredit of any book, to deny
it to be that author's under whose name it hath been received.
FiiLKE, Fulke. If you know so well that the authority of the
canonical scripture standeth not upon the certainty of the author,
as indeed it doth not — for the books of Judges, of Ruth, of
Samuel the later, of the Kings, &c. who can certainly affirm
by whom they were written? — with what forehead do you charge
us to doubt of the authority of tliis epistle, because we report
out of the ancient writers the uncertainty of the author, or
leave out that title which is not certainly true ? " But yet
(you say) to be Paul's or not Paul's, apostoHcal or not apos-
tolical, maketh great difference of credit and estimation."
If by apostolical you mean, of apostolical spirit or authority,
I agree to that you say of apostolical, or not apostolical. If
you mean apostoHcal that only which was written by some
apostle, you will make great difference of credit and estima-
tion between the gospel of Mark, Luke, and the Acts of the
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 33
Apostles, from the gospels of Matthew and John. But which
of us, I pfay you, that thmketh that this epistle was not
written by St Paul, once doubteth whether it be not of apos-
tolical spir'it and authority? Which is manifest by this, that
both in preaching and writing we cite it thus, the Apostle to
the Hebrews. And if it were written by St Lulve, or by St
Clement, which both were apostohc men, seeing it is out of
controversy that it was written by the Spirit of God, it is
doubtless apostolical, and differeth not in credit and estimation
from those writings that are known certainly to have been
written by the apostles. But I marvel greatly why you write,
that to be Paul's or not Paul's maketh great difference of
credit and estimation. Those epistles that are Peter's and
John's are not Paul's; and yet I think there is no great dif-
ference of credit and estimation between them and Paid's.
What you thuik, I know not ; but you write very suspiciously.
You ask what made St James' epistle, or the 2nd of Peter
and the rest, to be sometimes doubted of, but that they were
not thought to be the epistles of those apostles ? Yes, some-
thing else, or else they doubted vainly of them, and without
just cause, as I think they did. But when there were two
apostles called James, he that doubteth whether the epistle
was written by James the brother of John, and is persuaded
it was written rather by James the son of Alpheus, doubteth
nothing of the credit, authority, and estimation of the epistle.
No more do we, which doubt whether the epistle to the
Hebrews were written by St Paul, seeing we are persuaded
it was written either by St Barnabas, or by St Luke, or by
St Clement, as the ancient writers thought, or by some other
of the apostles or evangehsts ; we make no question but that
it is apostolical, and of equal authority with the rest of the
holy scriptures. But Eusebius denied the epistle of St James,
because he was persuaded that it was written by no apostle
or apostolic man, and therefore saith plainly that it is a bastard
or counterfeit ; and so belike was Luther deceived, if ever he
denied it, as you say he did. " But if titles of books be of
no importance, (say you,) then leave out Matthew, Mark,
John, and Paul in his other epistles." AVhat need that, I
pray you ? Is there no difference between leaving out a title
whereof there hath been great uncertainty and diversity in
God's church, and which in some Greek copies both written
|FULKE.J
34 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
and printed is left out ; and in leaving out those titles that
never were omitted, nor never any question or controversy
moved of them by any of the ancient catholic fathers ? But
you will us to lu-ge no more the title of the Apocalypse of
St John the Divine, as though it were not St John the
Evangehst's ; and we shall please I kiiow not what heretics
of our time, except it be the papists, whom it would most
concern that the Revelation of St John, in which their anti-
christ of Rome is so plainly described, were brought out of
credit. But if you had read Beza's preface before the Apo-
calypse, you should find that even by that title he gathereth
a probable argument, that it was written by John the
Evangelist, because it is not like that this excellent name.
The Divine, could agree to any John in the apostles' time
so aptly, as to St John the Evangehst, beside the consent
of aU antiquity, ascribing that Revelation to St John the
evangehst and apostle. " Last of aU (you say) it is most
certain, and we know best by our usual doings, that it is a
principal way to discredit any book, to deny it to be the
author's imder whose name it hath been received." How
certain it is with you, whereof no man else but you can see
any light of reason or necessity of conclusion, I know not ;
but we are not so void of wit, if we lacked honesty, that we
would discredit Paul's epistle by saying it was Peter's, or
Augustine's sermon by saying it was Ambrose's, or Chrysos-
tom's work by -saying it was Basil's. But if we would bring-
any book out of credit by denying the author whose title it
hath borne, we would rather entitle it to some other writer
of less credit or later time, or by some other arguments
prove it unworthy of credit, not by only denying it to be the
author's under whose name it hath been received.
Martin, Martin. But I come to the third point, of voluntary expositions of
the scripture, that is, when every man expoundeth according to liis error
and heresy. This needeth no proof, for we see it with our eyes. Look
upon the Calvinists and Puritans at home ; the Lutherans, Zuinglians,
and Calvinists abroad. Read their books written vehemently, one sect
against another. Are not their expositions of one and the same scripture
as diverse and contrary, as their opinions differ one from another ? Let
the example at home be, their controversy about the distinction of eccle-
siastical degrees, archbishop, bishop, and minister ; the example abroad,
their diverse imaginations and fancies upon these most sacred words.
Hoc est corpus meum.
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 35
Ftdke. That every one of us expoundeth the scripture Fulke,
voluntarily 'according to liis error or heresy, you say it needeth ^^'
no proof, for you see it with your eyes. You have very clear
sight to see a mote in other men's eyes, but cannot see a
beam in your own. You make your demonstration by the
Calvinists and Puritans at home, and the Lutherans, Zuin-
glians, and Calvinists abroad; the one for the distinction of
ecclesiastical degrees, archbishop, bishop, and minister ; the
other for their diverse imaginations and fancies of these
words, Hoc est corpus meum. But I beseech you, sir, touch-
ing the domestical dissension, what is the text, or what be
the texts of scripture, upon which these voluntary expositions
are made, for the distinction or confusion of ecclesiastical
degrees? K they had been as ready as. Hoc est corpus meum,
they should have been set down as well as that. But I sup-
pose they are yet to seek ; for that controversy, as I take it,
standeth rather in collections than interpretations, and in
question whether the pohtical government of the church be
distinctly expressed in the scripture or no. As for the con-
tention abroad, I confess to stand a great part in exposition
of that text, wherein although the one part doth err, is
that a sufficient cause to condemn them both? The church
of Africa and the church of Rome, and the two principal
lights of them both, Cyprian and Cornelius, dissented about
rebaptizino- them that were baptized of heretics. The Afri- cypnanus,
r IS 1 et all! m
cans, not in one text only, but in the exposition of many, ^ricano.
differed from the Romans, and from the truth ; yet it were
hard to condemn them both for heretics, and least of all
them that held the truth. St Augustine and St Jerome^
dissented about a text of St Paul to the Galatians, of Peter's
dissembling, as their contrary epistles do testify. The truth
was of St Augustine's side ; yet was not the other an heretic,
following a wrong interpretation. And to come nearer home
unto you, the Dominican and Franciscan friars were at
daggers drawing, as we say, yea, at most sharp and bitter
contention between themselves, and all the popish church
was divided about their brawling, concerning the conception
\} Augustin. ad Hieron. Epist. xxviii. Vol. ii. p. 45. and Vol. xi. p. 85.
Hierouymus ad Augustin. Epist. lxxvi. de Petro rej^rehenso a Paulo.
Opera, Vol. iv. pars 2. p. 629. edit. Benedict. 1706. The text was Gal.
ii. 14.]
8—2
36 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
of the virgin Mary, whether she were conceived in sin, or
no ; where many texts of scripture must needs receive volun-
tary expositions, if not of both parts, yet at the least of
one part : which of these will you say were heretics ? If
you say neither of both, then must you have stronger
reasons to prove us all heretics, than voluntary expositions,
where parties be in diverse opinions, especially in matters
not overthrowing the foundation of christian religion. And
when you have gathered the most voluntary expositions you
can find, yet shall you find none so gross, so absurd, so im-
pertinent, as you papists have coined for maintenance of
your errors and heresies, of which you yourself are ashamed,
though otherwise you have iron foreheads and brasen faces.
A few examples among a great many shall suffice. " God
made man according to his own image :" that is to say, we
must have images in the church. " No man lighteth a candle
and putteth it under a bushel :" the meaning is, that images
must be set upon the altar. " God made two great lights,
the sun and the moon :" that is, the pope to be above the
emperor'. " Behold, here are two swords:" that is, the pope
hath power of both the swords. " Put on the whole armour
of God :" that is, the priest must put on all his vestments,
before he say mass. " I am become as sounding brass, or
as a tinkling cymbal :" that is, the bells in the steeple sig-
nify preacliing of God's word. I might fill many leaves,
yea, a whole book, of such popish expositions, as the papists
in our days dare not for shame abide by.
Martin Martin. And if you will yet have a further demonstration, this one
14. may suffice for all. They reject councils and fathers, and the catholic
church's interpretation, unless it be agreeable to God's word; and whether
it be agreeable or no, that Luther shall judge for the Lutherans, Calvin
for the Calvinists, Cartwright for the Puritans, and another for the
whitak. brethren of love : briefly, themselves will be judges both of councils and
120. ^" fathers, whether they expound the scriptures well or no ; and every youth
among them, upon confidence of his spirit and knowledge, will saucily
control not only one, but all the fathers consenting together, if it be
against that which they imagine to be the truth.
FuLKE, Fulke. We had need of a better demonstration than the
14. former, by whicli you yourselves are proved heretics, rather
{} Innocent IIL who excommunicated king John, thus mterpreted
Gen. i. 16, in a letter he addressed to the English monarch. See Marsh's
Lectures, pp. 369, 370.3
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 37
than we. But let us see how handsomely you begin. " They
reject (say you) councils and fathers, and the catholic church's
interpretation, unless it be agreeable to God's word." Thus
far you say well. We do reject not only those that you
name, but even an angel from heaven, except his message
be agreeable to God's word. But all the rest that you as-
sume, to the end of this section, is a stark staring Ue, ex-
cept that "you say of H. N.^ for the bretlu'en of love, which
are more like to you than to us. For neither Luther, nor
Calvin, nor Cartwright is judge among us, whether any thing
be agreeable to the word of God ; but whatsoever any of
them do say, it is examined and tried by the scriptures.
And the scriptures themselves, where they are so obscure,
that neither by common sense, knowledge of the original
tongue, grammar, rhetoric, logic, history, nor any other human
knowledge, nor judgment of any writers, old or new, the
certain understanding can be found out, they are either ex-
poimded by conference of other plainer texts of scripture,
according to the analogy of faith ; or else they remain still
in obscurity, until it shall please God to reveal a more clear
knowledge of them. But none so like the family of love as
you papists are, which reject councils, fathers, interpretation
of the most ancient catholic church, yea, and manifest scrip-
ture itself, except it be agreeable to the judgment of your
P. M. Poniifex Max. the pope, as those familiar devils submit
all things to the sentence and authority of their H. N.
Shame you nothing therefore to quote Whitaker^ pp. 17 and
120, as though he affirmed, that we ourselves wiU be judges
both of councils and fathers, whether they expound the
scriptures well or no ? because he writeth (percase), that we
ought to examine all men's writings by the word of God.
Doth the apostle make every man judge of all things, when
he willeth every man to examine aU things, and to hold that
which is good? If any youth, upon confidence of liis wit
or knowledge, presume too much m divine matters, we count
it rashness. But that any youth among us, upon confidence
of his spirit, wUl saucily control all the fathers consenting
together against his fantasy, except it be some schismatic
or heretic, that is cast out from amongst us, I do utterly
\^ Henry Nicholas. Vid. Cardwell's Documentary Annals, Vol. i.
p. 392.]
P Ad Rationes Campiani. edit. 1581.]
38 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
deny ; neither are you able to prove it of any that is allowed
among us.
Martin, Martin. Whereupon it riseth, that one of them defendeth tliis as
iwd 101 ^^^y ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ Luther, " That he esteemed not the worth of a rush a
thousand Augustines, Cyprians, churches, against himself." And another
very finely and figuratively (as he thought), against the holy doctor and
Praf. ad 6.1 martyr St Cyprian, affirming that the church of Rome cannot en- in faith,
Oxon.' p. 25. saith thus : " Pardon me, Cyprian, I would gladly believe thee, but that
believing thee I should not believe the gospel." This is that which S.
Lib. Con- Aujnistine saith of the like men : Dulcissime vanos esse, non peritos, sed
fess. 1. cap. '^ 9 A J T
14. lib. 7. perituros, nee tarn disertos in errore, quam desertos a veritate . And 1
^' ' think, verily, that not only we, but the wiser men among themselves,
cicer. de smile at such eloquence, or pity it, saying this or the like most truly :
Prodierunt oratores novi, stulti adokscentuli.
FuLKE, Fulhe. Why should you not, at your plea&Tire, upon your
false assumption general infer one or two slanders particular ?
Mr Wliitaker defendeth that it was well said of Luther, " That
he esteemeth not the worth of a rush a thousand Augustines,
Cyprians, churches, against liimself." Would God that every
papist would read liis own words in the place by you quoted,
that he might see your impudent forgery! For I do hope
there is no Christian that will imagine, that either Luther
would so speak, or any man of honesty defend him, so speak-
ing. For Luther was not so senseless, to oppose his own.
person, but the truth of his cause, grounded upon the holy
scriptures, not only agamst one thousand of men holding the
contrary, but even against ten thousand of angels, if they
should oppose themselves against the truth of God. But I
am to blame to deal so much in Mr Whitaker's cause, who,
ere it be long, will display the falsehood of Gregory Martin,
in a Latin writing, to his great ignominy.
The next cavil is upon Mr Rainolds' words, in his preface
to his Six Positions, disputed upon at Oxford, where against
Cyprian, affirming that the church of Rome cannot err in
faith, he saith, " Pardon me, Cyprian, I would gladly beheve
thee, but that in beheving thee I should not beheve the
\} Sex Theses de S. Scriptura et Ecclesia. Rupellae. 1586, by John
Rainolds.^
P This is- garbled fvom two or more passages : Nam et Homerus,
peritus texere tales fabellas, et dulcissime vanus est, &c. Confess, i. 14.
p. 146. edit. Bened. Garriebam plane quasi peritus, et nisi in Christo
Salvatore nostro viam tuam quaererem, non peritus, sed periturus essem.
lb. vii. 20. p. 247.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 39
gospel." These words you confess that he spake figuratively
and finely, as he thought; but that he used the figures of
irony and concession, you will not acknowledge, but all other
men may easily see. For first, he no where granteth that St
Cyprian affirmeth, that the church of Rome cannot err in
faith. But immediately before the words by you translated,
after he had proved out of the eleventh to the Romans, that
the particular church of Rome may be cut off, as well as the
church of the Israehtes, which were the natural branches,
he asks the question, Quid f et Cypriano seem est msum ?
" What ? and did it seem otherwise to Cyprian ? Pardon me,
Cyprian, &c." His meaning is plain, that Cyprian thought
not otherwise than St Paul hath written ; or if he did, it was
lawful to dissent from Cyprian. As a httle after he saith,
Quare si Bomanam ecclesiam errare non posse, S^c. Where-
fore, if Cyprian thought that the church of Rome could not
err in that point, by the sentence of the papists he himself
is to be condemned of error ; for divers papists whom he
nameth, confess that every particular church may err ; and
Verratus, one of them, affirmeth that the church of Rome is
a particular church, wliich the rest cannot deny. And indeed
that which Cyprian writeth, is about certain runagate here-
tics, that, flying out of the church of Carthage, sought to be
received of the particular church of Rome. All this whUe
here is no grant that Cyprian affirmeth, that the church of
Rome cannot err in faith. And if Cyprian had so affirmed
contrary to the scripture, it might have been justly replied
unto him, which St Augustine saith Avhen he was pressed with
his authority. Contra Crescon., Mb. 2, cap. 31. Nos nullam
Cypriano facimus injuriam: "We do Cyprian no wrong," when
we distinguish any writings of his from the canonical autho-
rity of the divine scriptures. And in truth the words which
Mr Rainolds before cited out of St Cyprian, lib. 1, ep. 3, ad
Cornel., are spoken of no matter of faith, but in a matter of
discipline. Neither doth Cyprian say that the church of Rome
cannot err in faith, but that those heretics which brought
letters from schismatics and profane persons, did not consider
that they are Romans, whose faith is praised by the com-
mendation or preaching of the apostle, to whom perfidia,
" falsehood, or false dealing," can have none access^ : meaning
P Post ista adhuc insuper Pseudo-episcopo sibi ab haereticis consti-
tuto, navigare audent, et ad Petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam princi-
40 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
that the Romans, so long as they continue in that faith which
was praised by the apostle, cannot join with heretics and
schismatics, that are cast out of other catholic churches. For
that he could not mean that the pope or church of Rome
cannot err in faith (as the papists affirm), it is manifest, for
that in a question of religion, he dissented both from the
bishop and church of Rome, as all learned men know he did,
which he would never have done, if he had believed they could
not err. And that his meaning was not that the bishop of
Rome could not err in matters of discipline, it is manifest in
the next epistle, where he complaineth, that Basihdes, a
wicked man, "after his crimes were detected, and his conscience
made bare by his own confession, went to Rome, and deceived
our fellow-bishop, Stephanus, dwelling far oif, and being igno-
rant of the case, so that he sought ambitiously to be unjustly
restored into the bishopric from whence he was justly deposed'."
These things prove, that St Cyprian thought it no impossible
thing for the bishops and church of Rome to err in faith
or government. Wherefore that you cite out of Augustine
agreeth best unto yourself, and such as you are, who employ
all your eloquence and utterance to set forth lies and slanders.
Last of all, when you have nothing else to disgrace those
grave and learned writers, you would make them, by abusing
a piece of Tully, contemptible for their youth among such
as know them not ; who if they wanted half a score years
apiece of that ripe and well-seasoned age they have, yet
with those gifts of godhness and learning, which God hath in
great measure bestowed upon them, they were worthy to be
reverenced. So that venomous traitor, which writeth of the
persecution of the papists, maketh me a very young man, and
palem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, a schismaticis et prophanis
literas ferre ; nee cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides apostolo prae-
dicante laudata est, ad quos perfidia non potest habere accessum. Cypri-
ani Opera. Par. 1609. 4to. fol. 7. hodie Epist. 3.5.]
[} Quod et apud vos factum videmus in Sabini coUegse nostri ordi-
natione, ut de universae fratemitatis suffragio et de episcoporum qui in
praesentia convenerant, quique de eo ad vos literas fecerant, judicio
episcopatus ei deferretur, et manus ei in locum Basilidis imponeretur.
Nee rescrndere ordinationem jure perfeetam potest, quod Basilides, post
crimina sua detecta et conseientiara etiam propria confessione nudatam,
Romam pergens Stephanum collegam nostrum longe positum et gestae
rei ac veritatis ignarum fefellit, ut cxambiret reponi se injuste in epis-
copatum de quo fuerat jure depositus. — Cypriani Epistola lxviii. edit.
Baluzii. 1706. p. 119.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 41
therefore contemned of the ancient fathers at Wisbech ; and
yet I can 'easily prove that I was of lawful age, if more than
twice one-and-twenty years will serve, before ever I saw
Wisbech castle.
Martin. The fourth pomt is, of picking quarrels to the veiy original Mabtin,
text : for alter and change it I hope they shall not be able in this watch- "•
ful world of most vigilant catholics. But what they would do, if all
bibles were only in their hands and at their commandment, guess by
this : that Beza, against the evidence of aU copies, both Greek and Latin, Beza, the
(in his Annotations upon the New Testament, set forth in the year 1556,) Geneva,
thinketh tt^wtoc is more than should be in the text Matt, x., and to text of
» / T •• 1 - ' ^ « •• 1 o scripture.
eK'^vvonevov, Luc. xxu., and irpoa-Kwetv auToi?, Acts vu. : the lirst
against Peter's supremacy; the second, against the real presence of
Christ's blood in the blessed sacrament; the third, against the making
of whatsoever images, whether they be adored or no. Thus you see, how .
the mouse of Geneva (as I told you before of Marcion the mouse of
Pontus) nibbleth and gnaweth about it, though he cannot bite it off
altogether.
Fulke. In this point you do notliing but pick quarrels, see- Fulke,
ing you confess that neither they have, nor can alter or change ^^*
any thing of the original text. If Beza express his conjecture
upon some ground or similitude of I'eason, that ttjowtos in
Matthew x., to eK-^woixevov, Luke xxii., and irpooKwelv av-
Tol^, Acts vii., might perhaps be added to the text out of the
margin or otherwise, and yet doth not precisely affirm it, but
leave it to judgment and trial of ancient copies, if any shall
be found to favour his conjecture ; what hath he like to the
mouse of Pontus, Marcion, which altered and corrupted the
text? You say he nibbleth and gnaweth about it, though
he cannot bite it off altogether : and for what advantage ?
forsooth, because the first word maketh for Peter's supre-
macy, a poor supremacy that Peter can gain in that he is
named the first in the catalogue of the apostles, which is
but a primacy of order, not of honour ; or, as Ambrose- saith, Deincam.
a primacy of confession, not of honoiu*, of faith, not of de-
gree. The second word you say is against the real presence
of Christ's blood in the blessed sacrament. You are a perilous
P Hie ergo qui ante reticebat, ut doceret nos quod impiorum nee
verbupi debeamus iterare ; hie, inquam, ubi audivit, * Fos autem quid
me dicitis? statim loci non immemor sui, primatum egit; primatum
confessionis utique, non honoris; primatum fidei, non ordinis. — Am-
brosii de Incam. Domini Liber unus. cap. 4. Opera, Vol. ii. p. 710.
edit. Bened. Paris. 1690.]
* Matt. xvi. 15.
42 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
cat, that can spy a mouse gnawing at the real presence, which
none of the ancient fathers, or late writers before these days,
could find in those words. And as for making of images,
who doth forbid, except it be in any use of religion, which
God doth forbid ui the second commandment of the first table ?
And where you will have men to guess what we would do if
all bibles were only in our hands, by this example of Beza's
conjectures ; I wish men rather to consider what the Romish
rats were like to do in that case, which in their translation
of the ten commandments for the people's instruction have
clean gnawed out the second commandment ; and because they
cannot bite it clean out of the bible, they seek all shifts to
hide it under the first commandment. Finally, whether Lin-
danus and you do pick quarrels against all the evidence of
all Greek copies, I refer me to your fourth section, where out
of Lindanus you falsely affirm, that certain of Marcion's cor-
ruptions remain in the Greek text until this day.
Martin, Martin. He doth the like in sundry places, which you may see in
^^' his Annotations, Acts vii. 16 ; where he is saucy against all copies, Greek
and Latin, to pronounce corruption, corruption, avouching and endeavour-
ing to prove that it must be so, and that with these words, " To what pur-
pose should the Holy Ghost, or Luke, add this 1" Acts viii. 26. But because
those places concern no controversy, I say no more but that he biteth at
the text, and would change it according to his imagination, if he might ;
which is too proud an enterprise for Beza, and small reverence of the
holy scriptures, so to call the very text into controversy, that whatsoever
pleaseth not him, crept out of the margin into the text, which is his com-
mon and almost his only conjecture.
FuLKE, Fulhe. Where Beza noteth corruption in places that con-
^^' cern no controversy, it appeareth that without partiality he
desireth to restore the text to sincerity. And yet he is
charged of you with pride and sauciness. Why more, I pray
you, than Lindanus, of whom you learned to prattle so much
of the mouse of Pontus ? Which, Mb. 2, de optim. gen. inter-
pret, scripturas, hath divers chapters of the defect of the
Greek text, of the redundance, and of the corruption thereof.
If Lindanus might do this with modesty, and desire to find out
the truth (as I think he did), why may not an indifferent
reader judge the like of Beza in his doings ? As for creepmg
out of the margin into the text, which you say is his common
and almost only conjecture, why may it not come to pass in
writing out of the books of the scripture, as it hath in other
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 43
writings of other authors ? And that either by that means,
or by some other means, corruption hath happened to all
copies that at tliis day are extant, both Greek and Latin, in
naming Jeremiah for Zechariah, Matthew xxvii., who is so
blind that he will not see? Yet the ordinary Gloss confesseth,
that there were divers copies in times past, in which the
name of Jeremiah was not, but the word prophet generally.
Likewise in the vulgar Latin text, in the beginning of St
Mark's gospel, Isaiah is cited for that wliich is written in
Malachf, and some Greek copies have the same, from whence
it is like the Latin translation received that error : but
the more part of best Greek copies leave out the name of
Isaiah. How these corruptions should come into the text,
except it be out of the margin, if you can find a better con-
jecture, we shall be content with more patience to hear you,
than you can abide to hear Beza.
Martin. He biteth sore at the word civaroXt], Luke i. 78, and will Martin,
not translate that, but the Hebrew word of the Old Testament; but at ^^•
ft)S?i/a?, Acts ii. 24, much more, and at efSoajju^KovTa TreVre, Acts vii. -"
14, exceedingly: but yet, after he hath said aU that he could against it, ^"jgl^'-
he concludeth, that he durst not, and that he had a conscience, upon rovKaivdi/.
conjecture to change any thing. And therefore all this is gnawing only. ciietVthe"'
But in the third of Luke he maketh no conscience at aU, to leave out ^f ^^g ^g^
these words, verse 36, Qui fuit Cainan, not only in his own translation, ^tth'the"He
but in the vulgar Latin which is joined therewith, saying in his Annota- [^^ ofS^t"*^
tions, Non dubitavimus expungere; that is, "We doubted not to put it putting'out
out : and why ? " By the authority of Moses, Gen. xi. :" whereby he signi- text so much
fieth, that it is not in the Hebrew, Gen. xi., where this posterity of Shem him.
is reckoned ; and so, to maintain the Hebrew verity (as they call it) in
the Old Testament, he careth not what become of the Greek in the New
Testament, which yet at other times, against the vulgar Latin text, they
call the Greek verity, and the pure fountain, and that text whereby all
translations must be tried.
Fulke. His biting (as you call it) at the Avord dvaToXrj Fulke,
Luke i., and lo^lva^, Acts ii., and el^Sofx^Koura irevre, Acts vii., ^^^
seeing they concern no controversy, might have been contained
in the section next before, especially seeing you confess he saith
he durst not, and that he had a conscience, upon conjecture
to change anytliing. But in the third of Luke, verse 36, he
maketh no conscience at all to leave out the words. Qui fuit
Cainan, saying in liis Annotations that he doubted not to
put it out by authority of Moses, Genesis xi. ; a sore charge
to diminish any part of the holy scripture. But if he have
44) THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
only corrected an error of the scribe, wliich by all likelihood
took upon him to add unto St Luke out of the Greek text
of the LXX. that wliich is not in the Hebrew, verily, I see
not what oifence he hath committed. For, first, he can mean
no fraud in concealing those words, whereof he doth admonish
the reader, and of the cause of his leaving them out. Se-
condly, he winneth no advantage against his adversaries, or
to his own cause, by omitting to say, that Sala was the son of
Cainan, whom Moses affirmeth to be the son of Arphaxad.
And seeing Moses, Genesis xi., hath no such Cainan the son of
Arphaxad, it is not like that St Luke, who borrowed that
part of his genealogy out of Moses, would add anything which
Moses had omitted. But you say that Beza, to maintain the
Hebrew verity of the Old Testament, careth not what become
of the Greek in the New Testament. You should have made
your antitheton more full (wherein it seemeth you pleased
yourself not a little), if you had said that Beza, to maintain
the Hebrew verity of the Old Testament, careth not what
becometh of the Greek corruption in the New Testament ;
and so you should have spoken both more eloquently and
more truly. But at other times (you say), against the vulgar
Latin text, they call the Greek text the Greek verity, and
the pure fountain, and that whereby all translations must be
tried. We say indeed, that by the Greek text of the New
Testament all translations of the New Testament must be
tried ; but we mean not by every corruption that is in any
Greek copy of the New Testament, and much less that the
Hebrew text of the Old Testament should be reformed after the
Greek of the New, where it is uncorrupted ; and least of all,
where any copy is guilty of a manifest error, as in this place
now in question,
Martin, Martin. But if he have no other way to reconcile both Testaments,
but by striking out in the Greek of the New all that agreeth not with
the Hebrew of the Old Testament, then let him alter and change so
many words of our Saviour himself, of the evangelists, and of the apostles,
as are cited out of the Old Testament, and are not in Hebrew. Which
places they know are very many, and when need is, they shall be gathered
to their hands. Let him strike out (Matt. xiii. 14, 15, and Acts xxviii.
isai. vi. 9, 26, 27) the words of our Saviour and St Paul, cited out of Isaiah, because
10
Gal. iii. 13. they are far otherwise in the Hebrew. Strike out of the Epistle to the
Tras Kpefxa- Qajatiaus thesc words, " upon a tree," because in the Hebrew it is only
^v\ov. thus : " Cursed is he that is hanged." Deut. xxi. in fine. Yea, strike
'"'''" out of David's Psalms that which concerneth our redemption upon the
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 45
cross much nearer, "They have pierced my hands and my feet," (Psalm
xxi.) because- in the Hebrew there is no such thing. Let them control
the apostle (Eph. iv.) for saying, dedit, " he gave gifts," because it is eXa^es.
both in the Hebrew and Greek, (Psalm Ixvii.) accepisti, " thou tookest ^f?^
gifts," and (Heb. x.) for corpus aptasti let them put aures perforasti, be- Q'^.l'*
cause it is so in the Hebrew, (Psalm xl.) To be short, if aU must be "b nnD
reformed according to the Hebrew, why doth he not in St Stephen's
sermon cut off the number of five souls from seventy-five, because it is
not in the Hebrew ?
FulJce. If you had read Beza's works as diligently to learn Fulke,
the truth out of them, as you have pried here and there
busily how to espy some fault or error in them, you should
easily have found that he hath other ways to reconcile both
the Testaments, and the difference that seemeth to be in the
allegations, than by striking out of the Greek in the New ,
all that agreeth not with the Hebrew of the Old Testament.
And therefore vainly you bid him alter so many words as
are cited in the New Testament out of the Old, which are not
in the Hebrew, and strike out of Matthew xiii. 14, 15, and
Acts xxviii. 26, 27, the words of our Saviour and St Paid,
cited out of Isaiah, because they are otherwise in the He-
brew. Beza knoweth that Christ and his apostles always keep
the sense of the Hebrew verity, although they do not always
rehearse the very words. But whereas you bid him out of
Gal. iii. 13, strike out these words "upon a tree," because
in the Hebrew it is only thus, "Cui'sed is he that is hanged;"
you shew either gross ignorance or intolerable frowardness,
for these words " upon a tree" are in that verse, and in the
next before. For thus the Hebrew text is : " 22. When there w'^y
shall be in any person a sin to be adjudged to death, and he X^rr'^v
shall be delivered to death, if thou shalt hang him upon a
tree : 23. Let not his carcase tarry all night upon that tree,
but in any case thou shalt bury him the same day, for accursed
to God is he that is hanged." The word "tree" being twice
named before, who would be so mad to say, that St Paul
hath added it beside the Hebrew text ? Likewise, where you
bid us strike out of the Hebrew, Psalm xxi., that which con- [fsai- x""!
cerneth our redemption on the cross, " They have pierced
my hands and my feet," because in the Hebrew there is no
such thing ; you say most untruly, for there is nothing else
in the Hebrew, no, not in the common readings, as Johannes
Isaac, a popish Jew, will teach you, who hath confuted the
46 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
cavils of Lindanus against the Hebrew text, of whom you
borrowed this example, where, if you had not been blind with
malice, you might have seen that St Jerome did read without
controversy fixerunt, " they have pierced," as also that the
most ancient copy of the Hebrew Psalms, supposed to have
nxa pertained to St Augustine of Canterbury, hath charu, " they
have pierced ; " though you had been ignorant what is written
concerning tliis word in the Masoreth, and what Isaac also
writeth of that word, as it is commonly read, that it cannot
signify, as you fancy, sicut leo, " like a lion:" and therefore the
Chaldee paraphrase tm'neth it, " As a lion, they pierced my
hands and my feet." But of this matter more hereafter, as
occasion shall be given. As for the apostle, Ephes. iv. saying
that Christ pave gifts, whereas of David it is said, he received
gifts, speaketh notliing contrary to the Hebrew ; but sheweth
wherefore Christ hath received gifts, namely, to bestow upon
his church : — except you will say that Christ gave of liis
own and received none, and so the apostle doth shew the
excellency of the truth above the figure, Christ above David.
Likewise, where the psalmist saith in the Hebrew, " Thou
hast opened mine ears," the apostle doth rightly collect, that
Christ had a body, wliich in his obedience was to be offered
unto the Father. Last of all, you would have five souls cut
from seventy-five in St Stephen's sermon, because it is not
in the Hebrew ; but you are deceived. For St Stephen
gathereth the whole number of them that are named in the
46th chapter of Genesis, namely, the two sons of Judah that
were dead, and Jacob's four wives, to shew how great liis
famUy was at the uttermost, before he went down into Egypt,
and how greatly God did multiply him afterward. What is
there in any of these examples lilce to qui fuit Cainan, about
which you make so much ado ?
Mariin, Martin. Must such difficulties and diversities be resolved by cliop-
ping and changing, hacking and hewing, the sacred text of holy scripture ?
See into what perplexities wilful heresy and arrogancy hath driven them.
To discredit the vulgar Latin translation of the bible, and the Fathers'
expositions according to the same, (for that is the oi-iginal cause of this,)
and besides that they may have always this evasion, " It is not so in the
Hebrew, it is otherwise in the Greek," and so seem jolly fellows and
great clerks unto the ig'norant people. What do they ? They admit
only the Hebrew in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New, to be
the true and authentical text of the scripture. Whereupon this followeth.
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 4"?
that they reject, and must needs reject, the Greek of the Old Testament
(called the Septuagint) as false, because it differeth from the Hebrew. Their per-
Which being rejected, thereupon it folio weth again, that wheresoever defending
those places so disagreeing from the Hebrew are cited by Christ or Hebrew^ text
the evangelists and apostles, there also they must be rejected, because Testament,
they disagree from the Hebrew ; and so yet again it foUoweth that the j",^*!. ^ff^
Greek text of the New Testament is not true, because it is not according ^ew.
to the Hebrew verity, and consequently the words of our Saviour and
writings of his apostles must be reformed (to say the least), because
they speak according to the Septuagint, and not according to the
Hebrew.
Fulke. Who alloweth, or who can abide chopping and Fulke,
changing, or hacking and hewing, the sacred text of holy scrip- ^^'
tures ? As for the perplexities, whereunto you feign that wilful
heresy and arrogance hath driven us, is of your weaving ; for
(God be praised !) we can well enough with good conscience
and sound knowledge, that may abide the judgment of all the
learned in the world, defend both the Hebrew text of the Old
Testament and the Greek text of the Ncav : not of pm^pose to
discredit the vulgar Latin translation and the expositions of
the Fathers, but to fetch the truth, upon which the hope of
otu" salvation is grounded, out of the first fountains and springs,
rather than out of any streams that are derived from them.
And this we do agreeable to the ancient Fathers' judgments.
For who knoweth not, what fruitful pains St Jerome took in
translating the scripture out of the original tongue ? JSTeither
would he be dissuaded by St Augustine ^ who although he
[^ Contra ignota signa propria magnum remedium est linguarum
cognitio. Et Latinae quidem linguae homines, quos nunc instruendos
suscepimus, duobus aliis ad scripturarum divinarum cognitionem opus
habent, Hebrsea scilicet et Graeca, ut ad exemplaria praecedentia recur-
ratur, si quam dubitationem adtulerit Latinoi-um interpretum inftnita
varietas. Quamquam et Hebraea verba non interpretata saepe invenia-
mus in libris, sicut Amen, et Halleluia, et Racha, et Hosanna, et si qua
sunt alia; quorum partim propter sanctiorem auctoritatem, quam vis
interpretari potuissent, servata est antiquitas, sicut est Amen, et Hal-
leluia; partim vero in aliam linguam transferri non potuisse dicuntur,
sicut alia duo quae posuimus. Sunt enim quaedam verba certarum lin-
guarum, quae in usum alterius linguae per interpretationem transire
non pos^int. Et hoc maxime interjectionibus accidit, quae verba mo-
tum animi significant potius, quam sententiae conceptae uUam particu-
1am; nam et haec duo talia esse perhibentur: dicunt enim Racha in-
dignantis esse vocem, Hosanna laetantis. Sed non propter haec pauca,
quae notare atque interrogare facillimum est, sed propter diversitates,
ut
48 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
misliked that enterprise at the first, yet afterward he highly
commended the necessity of the Greek and Hebrew tongue
for Latin men, to find out the certain truth of the text in
the infinite variety of the Latin interpretations ; for thus he
writeth, De Doct. Christ, lib. 2, cap. 11 : Contra ignota signa
propria magnum remedium est linguarum cognitio. Et Latince,
^c. "Against unknown proper signs the knowledge of tongues
is a great remedy. And truly men of the Latin tongue,
whom we have now taken in hand to instruct, have need also
of two other tongues unto the knowledge of the divine scrip-
tures, namely, the Hebrew and the Greek, that recourse may
be had unto the former copies, if the infinite variety of the
Latin interpreters shall bring any doubt; although we find
oftentimes in the books Hebrew words not interpreted, as
Amen, Alleluia., Racha, Osanna, Sfc," and a little after, Sed
nan propter hcec pauca^ S^c. " But not for these few words
wliich to mark and inquire of it is a very easy thing, but for
the diversities (as it is said) of the interpreters, the knowledge
of those tongues is necessary. For they that have interpreted
the scriptures out of the Hebrew tongue into the Greek
tongue may be numbered, but the Latin interpreters by no
means can be numbered. For in the first times of the faith,
as a Greek book came into every man's hand, and he seemed
to have some skill in both the tongues, he was bold to inter-
pret it. Wliich thing truly hath more helped the under-
standing than hindered, if the readers be not negligent ; for
the looking upon many books hath oftentimes made manifest
sundry obscure or dark sentences." This is St Augustine's
sound judgment of the knowledge of tongues and diversity
of interpretations, for the better understanding of the scrip-
tures. But let us see what be the absurdities that you gather
of our defending the original texts of both the tongues.
First, we must needs reject the Greek of the Old Testament,
ut dictum est, interpretum, illarum linguarum est cognitio necessaria.
Qui enim scripturas ex Hebraea lingua in Grsecam verterunt, nume-
rari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo mode. Ut enim cuique
primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Graecus, et aliquantu-
lum facultatis sibi utriusque linguse habere videbatur, ausus est inter-
pretari. Quae quidem res plus adjuvit intelligentiam, quam impedivit, si
modo legentes non sint negligentes. Nam nonnuUas obscuriores sen-
tentias plurium codicum saepe manifestavit inspectio. — De Doctrina
Christiana, Lib. ii. cap. 11, 12. Opera, Vol. in. pp. 24, 25.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 49
called Septuagint, as false, because it differeth from the
Hebrew, wKere it is not only different in words, but also
contrary in sense. Why should we not? But if it retain the
sense and substance, although it express not the same words,
we need not reject it. St Jerome \ who was required by Paula
and Eustochium to expound the prophets, not only accord-
ing to the truth of the Hebrew, but also after the translation
of the Septuagint, whereof he divers times complaineth,
upon the 1st of Nahum saith expressly, that it was against
liis conscience always to follow the same. Ignoscite prolixi-
iati, Sfc. " Pardon me that I am so long, for I cannot,
following both the story and the tropology or doctrine of
manners, comprehend both briefly ; most of all, seeing that
I am so greatly tormented or troubled with the variety of the
translation, and against my conscience sometimes I am com-
pelled to frame a consequence of the vulgar edition," which
was the Septuagint. This was St Jerome's opinion of the
Septuagint translation. But upon rejection of that trans-
lation (say you) it followeth, that wheresoever those places, so
disagreeing from the Hebrew, are cited by Christ, or the
evangehsts and apostles, there also they must be rejected,
because they disagree from the Hebrew; and so the Greek
text of the New Testament is not true, and consequently
the words of our Saviour and writings of his apostles, speak-
ing according to the Septuagint, must at least be reformed.
It is an old saying, and a true, that one inconvenience being
granted, many do follow; and so you may heap up an hundred
after this manner. But for answer I say, that neither our
Saviour, nor his apostles, citing any place out of the Old
Testament, do bring anything disagreeing in sense and sub-
stance of matter (the purpose for which they allege it consi-
dered) from the truth of the Hebrew text. Therefore there
is no need that the LXX. in those places should be rejected.
Although our Saviour Christ, speaking in the Syrian tongue,
is not to be thought ever to have cited the text of the LXX.,
which is in Greek. And his apostles and evangehsts, using
[} Ignoscite prolixitati: non enim possum, et historian! et tropolo-
giam sequens, breviter utrumque comprehendere : maxime qiium et
interpretationis varietate torquear, et adversus conscientiam meam cogar
interdum vulgatae editionis consequentiam texere. — Gomment. Hiero-
nymi in Nahum. cap. 1. Opera, Vol. in. p. 1507.]
4
[fulke.]
50 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
that text, regard the substance of the sentence, and not the
form of words. For many times they cite not the very words
of the Greek LXX. neither; and St Jerome, in Catalogo script.
Eccles., which is set as a preface to St Matthew's gospel,
telleth you expressly, that in the Hebrew example of St
Matthew, which he had, wheresoever the evangehst St Matthew,
either in his own person, or in the person of our Lord and
Saviour, useth the testimonies of the Old Testament, he fol-
loweth not the authority of the seventy translators, but the
Hebrew, of which these are two places : " Out of Egypt have
I called my son," and " he shall be called a Nazarite." See
you not what a perilous perplexity we are in by defending
both the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the Greek
of the New, when neither are contrary to the other ?
Martin, Martin. All which must needs follow, if this be a good consequence,
21. « J gjj^ j^ jjQ^ jjj Moses, nor in the Hebrew, therefore I struck it out,"
as Beza doth and saith concerning the foresaid words, qui fait Cainan.
This consequence therefore let us see how they will justify ; and withal
let them tell us, whether they will discredit the New Testament because
of the Septuagint, or credit the Septuagint because of the New Testament;
or how they can credit one and discredit the other, where both agree
and consent together; or whether they wUl discredit both for credit
of the Hebrew; or rather, whether there be not some other way to
reconcile both Hebrew and Greek, better than Beza's impudent pre-
sumption. Which if they wUl not maintain, let them flatly confess that
he did wickedly, and not (as they do) defend every word and deed of
their masters, be it never so heinous, or salve it at the least.
FiTLKE, Fulke. No whit of that doth follow by striking out qui
fait Cainan, because it is not found in Moses; and therefore we
have nothing to do to justify your vain consequence, grounded
upon an absurdity of your own devising. But we must tell
you, whether we will discredit the New Testament because of
the Septuagint! No, not for a thousand millions of Septuagints,
nor for all the world will we credit the Septuagint against the
truth of the Old Testament. But whatsoever is cited out of
the LXX. in the New, is not contrary to the Hebrew in the
Old; and therefore the way of reconciliation is easily found,
without discrediting both, or either of both, in those places.
And in this place, which is a mere corruption, borrowed out of
the corruption of the Septuagint, or a Judaical addition,
Genesis xi. I think there is no better way of reconciling than
to strike it clean out, as Beza hath done ; which generation
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 51
neither is in the Hebrew verity, nor in your own vulgar Latin
translation; either Genesis xi., or 1 Par. i. Beside that it
maketh a foul error in the computation of time, adding no
less than two hmidred and thirty years between Arphaxad
and Sala, more than the Hebrew verity, or the vulgar Latin
agreeing therewith, doth number. And therefore he was
more presumptuous, that out of the corrupt and false text
of the Septuagint added the same mito the genealogy in St
Luke, than Beza, which by the authority of Moses removed
the same. If you will still persist to defend the authority of
the Septuagint against the Hebrew verity, which like an atheist
you deride, at leastwise defend your own vulgar Latin trans-
lation of the Old Testament, and deUver yourself out of that
perplexity in which you would place us between the Hebrew
of the Old and the Greek of the New Testament ; seeing
no less doubts entangleth you between the Latin of the New,
and the Latin of the Old, differing altogether alike as the
Greek and the Hebrew do.
Martin. Alas ! how far are these men from the modesty of the ancient Martin,
fathers, and from the humble spirit of obedient catholics, who seek all „ ' ^
' ^ ^ How the
other means to resolve difficulties, rather than to do violence to the fathers re-
sacred scripture ; and when they find no way, they leave it to God. said Hebrew
St Augustine, concerning the difference of the Hebrew and the Greek, lib. is. de'
saith often to this effect, that it pleased the Holy Ghost to utter by 43"'' '^^'^
the one that which he would not utter by the other. And St Ambrose^ Doctchr.
thus : " We have found many things not idly added of the seventy Hlxam lib
Greek interpreters." St Jerome^, though an earnest patron of the He- f^'^^f- ^■
ooem.
lib. Paralip.
[} Multa enim non otiose a Septuaginta viris Hebraicae lectioni ad-
dita et adjuncta comperimus. — Hexaemeron. Lib. iii. cap. 5. Opera. Vol. i.
p. 42.]
[^ Legimus in apostolo : In aliis Unguis et in labiis aliis loquor po-
pulo huic, et nee sic exaudient me, dicit Dominus. Quod mihi videtur
juxta Hebraicum de praesenti sumptum capitulo : et hoc in veteri ob-
servavimus Testament© (absque paucis testimoniis, quibus Lucas solus
abutitur, qui magis Grsecae hnguae habuit scientiam) ubiquumque de
veteri instrumento quid dicitur, non eos juxta Septuaginta, sed juxta
Hebraicum ponere, nullius sequentes interpretationem, sed sensum He-
braicum cum suo sermone vertentes. Symmachus, Theodotio, et LXX.
de hoc loco (nempe Isaise xxviii. 9-13) diversa senserunt: et quia
longum est de omnibus dicere, LXX. Interpretes, qui leguntur in ec-
clesiis, breviter transcurramus. — Comment. Hieronymi in Isaiae xxviii.
Opera, Vol. iii. pp. 237, 238.
Neque vero Septuaginta Interpretum, ut invidi latrant, errores ar-
4—2
52 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
brew (not without cause, being at that time perhaps the Hebrew verity
indeed) yet giveth many reasons for the differences of the Septuagint;
Comment, in and concerning the foresaid places of St Luke, he doth give a reason
and in Quae-
stion. He- guimus. • • • • Nec nostrum laborem illorum reprehensionem
putamus, quum illi Ptolemaeo, regi Alexandria, mystica quiEque in
scripturis Sanctis prodere noluerint; et maxirae ea quae Christi adven-
tum poUicebantur ; ne viderentur Judsei et alteram Deum colere : quos
ille Platonis sectator magni idcirco faciebat, quia unum Ueum colere
dicerentur. Sed et evangelistae, et Dominus quoque noster atque Sal-
vator, necnon et Paulus apostolus, multa quasi de veteri Testamento
proferunt, quae in nostris codicibus non habentur: super quibus in
suis locis plenius disseremus. Ex quo perspicuum est, ilia magis vera
esse exemplaria, quae cum novi Testamenti auctoritate concordant. —
Praefatio Hieronymi in Lib. Heb. Qusest. in Genesim. Opera, Vol. ii.
pp. 506, 507.
Si Septuaginta interpretum pura, et ut ab eis in Graecum versa
est, editio permaneret, superfue me, mi Chromati, episcoporiim sanctis-
sime atque doctissime, impelleres, ut Hebraea volumina Latino sermone
transferrem : quod enim semel aures hominum occupaverat, et nas-
centis ecclesiae roboraverat fidem, justum erat etiam nostro silentio
comprobari. Nunc vero, cum pro varietate regionum diversa ferantur
exemplaria, et germana ilia antiquaque translatio corrupta sit atque
violata; nostri arbitrii putas, aut e pluribus judicare quid verum sit,
aut novum opus in veteri opere cudere, illudentibusque Judaeis cor-
nicum, ut dicitur, oculos configere. Alexandria et -ffigyptus in Sep-
tuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque
Antiochiam Luciani Martyris exemplaria probat. Mediae inter has
provinciae Palaestinos codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaborates Euse-
bius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt: totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria
varietate compugnat. Et certe Origenes non solum exemplaria compo-
suit quatuor editionum, e regione singula verba describens, ut unus
dissentiens statim ceteris inter se consentientibus arguatur; sed, quod
majoris audaciae est, in editione Septuaginta Theodotionis editionem
miscuit, asteriscis designans quae minus ante fuerant, et virgulis quae
ex superfluo videbantur apposita. Si igitur aliis licuit non tenere quod
semel susceperant ; et post Septuaginta cellulas, quae vulgo sine auctore
jactantur, singulas cellulas aperuere, hocque in ecclesiis legitur quod
Septuaginta nescierunt; cur me non suscipiant Latini mei, qui invio-
lata editione veteri ita novam condidi, ut laborem meum Hebraeis et,
quod his majus est, apostolis auctoribus probem 2 » • * • Christus Do-
minus noster, utriusque Testamenti conditor, in Evangelio secundum
Johannem, Qui credit, inquit, in me, sicut dicit scriptura, flumina de
ventre ejus fluent aquce vivce. Utique scriptum est, quod Salvator scrip -
tum esse testatur. Ubi scriptum est ? Septuaginta non habent ; apo-
crypha nescit ecclesiai. Ad Hebraeos igitur rcvcrtcndum est, unde et
Dominus loquitur, et discipuli exempla praesumunt. — Pracfat. Hierony-
mi in Paralipom. Opera, Vol. i. pp. 1022, 1023.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 53
thereof, both for the seventy, and for the evangelist that followed them,
neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor controlling them " by the
authority of Moses" (as Beza speaketh), that is, by the Hebrew. Others
say concerning Cainan, that Moses might leave liim out in the gene-
alogy of Shem by the instinct of the same Spirit, that St Matthew left Matt. i.
out three kings in the genealogy of our Saviour. Where if a man
would control the evangelist by the Hebrew of the Old Testament
that is read in the books of the Kings, he should be as wise and as
honest a man as Beza. Lastly, venerable Bede thinketh it sufficient P^^f. in Act.
in tliis very difficulty of Cainan to marvel at it reverently, rather than
to search it dangerously. And thus far of picking quarrels to the
origmal text, and their good will to alter and change it as they list,
if they might be suffered.
Fulke. Here of pity you will shew unto us a piece of learn- Fulke,
ing, how the fathers reconcile the said Hebrew and Greek ^2-
without violence to the text, as they do always, or else leave
the matter to God.
First, St Augustine, De Civitate, hb. 18, cap. 43. De Docf.
Chr. lib. 2, cap. 15, of their agreement, notwithstanding they
were separated mto several cells, gathereth, that those Septua-
gints were inspired with the same prophetical spu'it of inter-
preting, that the prophets were in foreshowing. But this doth
St Jerome utterly deny, and derideth the gromid of this pea^^JSi.
imagination, those seventy-two cells at Alexandria, as a fable
and a he. That St Ambrose saith, " we have found that many
things are not idly added of the seventy Greek interpreters ;" p^^"'y''^-
we confess as much, where their addition serveth for exph-
cation of that which is contained in the Hebrew : and so
meaneth Ambrose ; not that they had authority to add any
tiling, which Moses had omitted. And we acknowledge with
St Jerome, that there may be many reasons given for the
difference of the one from the other. But concerning tliis
place of St Luke now in question, you say he giveth a reason
thereof, both for the LXX. and for the evangehst that fol-
lowed them, neither doubting of the truth thereof, nor con-
trolUng them by the authority of Moses. And for this you
quote Comment, in 28 Esa. and in Question. Hehrai. in neither
of wliich places is any mention of this place, much less any
reason given to reconcile it or the Septuagint with the
Hebrew. It seemeth, you read not the books yourself, but
trusted too much some man's collection, which you understood
not. In the preface to the Hebrew Questions Jerome ex-
54 THE ANSWEE TO THE PREFACE.
cuseth himself against envious persons, tliat barked against
him as though he did nothing but reprove the errors of the
LXX., saying, " That he thinketh not liis labour to be a
reprehension of them, seeing they would not express unto
Ptolemffius, king of Alexandria, certain mystical things in
the scriptures, and especially those things which promised
the coming of Christ, lest the Jews might have been thought
to worship another God, whom that follower of Plato there-
fore did greatly esteem, because they were said to worship
but one God. But the evangelists also, and our Lord and
Saviour, and St Paul the apostle, bring forth many things,
as it were out of the Old Testament, which are not had in
our books, of which in their due places we will more fully
discuss. Whereof it is clear, that those are the more true
examples, which agree with the authority of the New Testa-
ment." Thus much Jerome in that place ; but neither in
liis questions upon Genesis, nor 1 Parahp. the proper places
for tliis text, is there any mention of this place of Luke, qui
fmt Cainan. In the place cited by you upon the 28th of
Isaiah, he saith, Legimus in apostolo, ^c. " We read in the
apostle, ' In other tongues and hps will I speak to this
people, and neither so shall they hear me, saith the Lord :'
which seemeth to me to be taken out of this present chapter,
according to the Hebrew. And tliis we have observed in
the Old Testament, except a few testimonies which only Luke
useth otherwise, wliich had knowledge of the Greek tongue
rather wheresoever any thing is said out of the Old Testament,
that they set it not according to the LXX., but according to
the Hebrew, following the translation of no man, but turning
the sense of the Hebrew into their own speech." You see
that Jerome saith nothing particularly ; and that which he
saith generally, concerneth this place nothing at all. And
very like it is, that this corruption was not crept into St
Luke's text in his time, especially seeing neither St Ambrose
in his Commentary upon St Luke once toucheth this contro-
versy, as he doth all other questions about that genealogy.
Where you say, St Jerome was "a great patron of the Hebrew,
not without cause, being at that time perhaps the Hebrew
verity indeed ;" it is without perhaps, or peradventure, that
not one iota or prick of the law of God can perish, by the
testimony of our Saviour Christ, Matthew v. And if you
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 55
will believe Arias Montanus^ an excellent learned papist, he
will tell you as much, out of the same text doubtless, in his
preface unto the great bible by him set out, with diligent
observation of all the accents and Hebrew points, which Christ
(saith he) will never suffer to perish. And if the Hebrew
verity were in Jerome's time (as doubtless it was), whether
he had a perfect copy thereof or no, the same Arias Mon-
tanus testifieth, if you dare credit him, being one of your sect
for opinion, though in sincerity of mind and love of the truth,
which I pray to God to reveal unto him, I think him far
better than a number of you ; he (I say) affirmeth in the
same preface, against the objection that is made of the Jews'
corruption of the Hebrew books: Etenim apud nonnull. " For
we read in some authors that, through the fraud and impulsion .
of the spirit of error, some of the nation of the Jews in
times past were brought to that point of insolence or madness,
that in the beginning of the christian chm'ch they changed
some words, which miffht altoojether break off that their con-
tention of impugning the christian verity. But those places
so defiled by them were very few ; and in the books of our
writers, and also in the copies both printed and written of
the Jews themselves, are all for the most part noted and
shewed out. For although either by the fraud of those men,
or by the ignorance of the book-writers, or by injury of the
times, some change hath been made in the Hebrew books
which we use ; yet is there not one word, nor one letter, nor
point, that is mentioned to have been of old time, which is
not found to have been safely kept in that most rich treasury,
which they call the Mazzoreth. For in that, as in an holy
and faithful custody, appointed with uttermost diligence and
great study, the remnants, monuments, tokens, steps, and
examples of the ancient reading are all contained, and the
way how to compare the old and new reading is shewed ;
of which truly, being compared together, a very certain way
\} Nam praeter excellenteni formarum, chartae, et characterum
praestantiam, integras etiam Chaldaicas in veteri Testamento paraphra-
ses, et Syriacae in novo lectionis libros, eosdemque dUigenti studio et
censura examinatos, et commoda Latinarum interpretationum copia in-
structos, opus hoc Complutensibus Bibliis addit; et quod ad lectionis
et sententiarum distmctionem explicationemque plurimum confert, ac-
centus omnes, Hebraicosque apices, (quos nunquam perire Christus
patietur,) diligentissime observatos adjungit. — Praefatio, fol. 26.]
56 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
is extant, to the prescript rule whereof the holy mysteries
may be shewed forth, examples whereof sometime in this
work, in due place, and elsewhere also, with God's help, we
will set forth." Thus far Arias Montanus, whose judgment
if you say you are not bound to follow, yet I suppose you
can yield no sufficient reason, why you should not credit his
testimony concerning the certainty of the Hebrew verity,
remaining to this day, and which shall remain to the world's
end, although all the smatterers among you would burst for
spite against it. Concerning the opinion of them which think,
that Moses might leave out Cainan in the Genealogy of Shem
by the same Spirit that Matthew left out three kings in the
genealogy of our Saviour, I answer. If it be lawful so to
imagine, we may without study answer all controversies ;
although the same reason is not of Moses, compiling a certain
accomit of the time from the flood to the calling of Abraham,
and of Matthew, shewing by the legal descent, which every
man might take out of the books of Kings and Chronicles,
that Christ was the son of David, and therefore he was not
bound to the number of successors, seeing for memory it was
liis purpose to recite but thrice fourteen generations.
That Bede marvelleth at the doubt which he could not
dissolve, his modesty is to be commended rather than liis
knowledge. Nevertheless the same Bede^, in his preface
unto his Retractation upon the Acts of the Apostles, speaking
of such difference as he found in the Greek text of the Acts
from the Latin, he saith : Quae utrum negligentia interpretis
omissa, Sfc. "Which things, whether they were omitted through
neghgence of the interpreter, or otherwise uttered, or for lack
of regard of the writers depraved, or otherwise left, as yet
we could not know. For I dare not so much as suspect
that the Greek copy was falsified : wherefore I admonish the
reader, that wheresoever we have done these things, he read
them for liis learning ; yet that he interlace them not in his
[} Quae utrum negligentia interpretis omissa, vel alitor dicta, an
incuria librariorum sint depravata, sive relicta, nondum scire potni-
mus. Namque Graecum exemplar fuisse falsatum, suspicari non audeo :
imde lectorem admoneo, ut haec ubicunque fecerimus, gratia eruditionis
legat, non in suo tamen volumiae velut cmendatos interserat, nisi forte
ea in Latino codice sute editionis antiquitus sic interpretata repererit. —
Praefatio ad Retractationem in Acta Apostolorum. Bedas Opera, Vol.
VI. p. 1. edit. Colonise Agrippinae. 1612.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 57
book, as places corrected, except perhaps he shall find the
same in some Latin book of a pecuhar edition, to have been
of old so interpreted." This place sheweth that in Bede's
time there were more Latin translations than one, and that
the vulgar Latin was not of such authority, but that it might
be corrected by the Greek, with the consent of other ancient
Latin translations. Likewise upon the text in question,
hb. 1, in Luc. cap. 3^, he confesseth that the name and gene-
ration of Cainan, according to the Hebrew verity, is found
neither in Genesis nor in the Chronicles ; saying that St
Luke took this generation from the edition of the Septuagint.
But whether is the truer, or whether both can be true, he
leaveth it to the knowledge of God ; noting that whereas,
according to the Hebrew verity, from the flood to the birth,
of Abraham there were but 292 years, the LXX. make
1077, so that the difference is no less than of 785 years.
But to favour this fact of Beza, in putting out the name of
Cainan, there is an ancient copy of the Gospels and Acts in
Greek and Latin, of as great antiquity by all likehhood as
any copy this day extant m Christendom, sent unto the
university of Cambridge this last year by Beza himself,
there to be kept in the common hbrary, in which copy this
generation of Cainan, both in the Greek and in the Latin,
is clean left out, even as Beza hath done in liis translation.
So that he hath not only the authority of Moses, which of
itself is sufficient, but also the testimony of this most ancient
book, both for the Greek and for the Latin, to approve his
fact in putting out qui fmt Cainan. What your vulgar
P Nomen et generatio Cainan, juxta Hebraicam veritatem, neque in
Genesi neque in verbis Dierum invenitur ; sed Arphaxat Sala vel Sale
filium, nullo interposito, genuisse perhibetur. Sic enim habes: Porro
Arphaxat vixit triginta annos et genuit Sale. Itemque in Paralipo-
menon, Arphaxat autem genuit Sala, qui et ipse genuit Heber. Scito
ergo beatum Lucam banc generationem de Septuaginta interpretum
editione sumpsisse, ubi scriptum est, quod Arphaxat centum trigin-
ta quinque annorum genuerit Cainan, et ipse Cainan, cum 130 fuerit
annorum, genuerit Sala. Sed quid horum sit verius, aut si utrum-
que verum esse possit, Deus noverit. Nos simpliciter admonemus lec-
torem, tantam inter utrosque codices in serie temporum esse discre-
pantiam, ut a diluvio usque ad nativitatem Abrahse in Hebraica veritate
anni ccxcii, in Septuaginta interpretum translatione m. septuaginta sep-
tem reperiantur esse comprehensi. — Beda in Lucae Evangelium, cap. iii.
Opera, Vol. v. pp. 256-7.]
58 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
Latin translation hath left out in the latter end of the Lord's
prayer m St Matthew, and in the beginning and midst in
St Luke, whereby that heavenly prayer is made imperfect,
not comprehending all tilings that a christian man ought to
pray for, beside many other like omissions, whether of pur-
pose, or of negligence, and injmy of time, yet still by you
defended, I spare to speak of in tliis place.
Martin,
23.
The 5th
abuse of
Scriptures,
Corrupt
Translation,
which is the
argument
and purpose
of this book.
FULKE,
23.
Martin,
24.
Martin. Which also may be proved by all their false translations
(being the principal point I mean to speak of) most evidently. For
as now they translate falsely to their purpose, because they cannot
alter the text; so Avould they, if it were possible, have the text
agreeable to then- translation. For example, he that translateth "or-
dinances," when it is in the original Greek text "justifications" and
"traditions,'' he would rather that it were "ordinances" also in the
Greek: but because he cannot bring that about, he doth at the least
what he can, to make the ignorant believe it is so, by so translating it.
FulJce. You shall never be able to prove by any transla-
tion of ours (though perhaps in some we may err), that we have
any purpose either to falsify the truth, or to change the
text, though it were possible for us. In translating we have
dealt with a good conscience, albeit not always peradventm-e
we have attained to the full truth, which in translating out
of one tongue into another is a very hard point throughly to
observe. Your example of "ordinances" translated for that
which in the Greek is "justifications" and "traditions," when you
shew where and by whom it is so translated, you shall receive
an answer. In the meantime I say, a translator that hath
regard to interpret for the ignorant people's instruction, may
sometimes depart from the etymology or common signification
or precise tiu-ning of word for word, and that for divers
causes. You yourselves translate not ecclesia always " the
church," but sometimes the assembly ; nor seniores, " elders,"
but seniors, or ancients. Neither would you translate pres-
byter always " a priest," if you translated the Old Testament.
In the story of Susannah you would not call them priests,
that laid wait for her honesty and hfe ; yet in your vulgar
Latin they are called priests. So are they called 7rpe(j(ivr€poi
in Greek in the New Testament, wliich you turn sometimes
priests, sometimes ancients, and sometimes seniors.
Martin. And this of all other is the most fine and subtle treachery
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 59
against the scriptures, to deceive the ignorant readers withal, (which
St Paul calleth " the secret things of dishonesty and adulterating of the 2 Cor. iv.
word of God," as it were mingling water with wine, like false vintners,)
when they give them for God's word, and under the name of God's
word, their own words, and not God's,'forged and framed, altered and
changed, according to differences of times, and variety of new opinions,
and diversity of humours and spirits, diversely and differently, one
heretic not only correcting his fellow every day, but one eagerly re- The here-
futing and refelling another : Bucer and the Osiandrians and Sacra- sion about
mentaries against Luther for false translations ; Luther against Munster, latlons^"^
Beza against Castalio, Castalio against Beza, Calvin against Servetus, Meian°"''
lUyricus both against Calvin and Beza. The puritans control the ^'g^- ^'''*[-
grosser Calvinists of our country ; yea, the later translations of the ^^^ Zuing.
selfsame heretics control the former exceedingly, not only of over- Confess,
sights but of wilful falsifications ; as is notorious in the later editions rum.
of Luther and Beza, and in our English bibles set forth in divers. 97! ' ^"
years, from Tindal their first translator until this day : yea (which is xesliment
more) the English translators of Beza's New Testament control him "1^1^^ ^^'^^
and his translation, wliich they protest to follow, being afraid some- Luke iii. 36.
times and ashamed to express in English his false translations in the
Latin.
FulJce. By false translations wilfully and of purpose to Fulkb,
falsify the truth of God's word is as gross and as abominable ^^'
treachery, as to corrupt the very text; although I think St
Paul, speaking of the covertures, or cloaks of chshonesty, and
adultering of the word of God, 2 Cor. iv. meaneth a further
cunning than false translations. That those whom you call
heretics find fault with one another's translations, they do
none otherwise than you popish heretics. Do not you,
Gregory Martin, in the 7th chapter and 33rd section of
tliis book, find fault with all the catholics, as you term them,
that translate sheol, sepulchrum, "a sepulchre," and not always 'jn-:^
"hell"? If Bucer or Zuinghus do" justly observe any error in
Luther, or Luther in Munster, or Beza in Castaho, the ana-
baptist, or Calvin in Servetus, the horrible heretic, yea, and
if froward and schismatical lUyricus can discover any error
committed by Calvin and Beza, the truth loseth nothing,
when the errors of men are found out, by what means
soever. That you speak of the puritans controlhng the
grosser Calvmists of our country, I know not what you mean,
neither do I think you can justify your words, for trans-
lation of the scriptures. Where you say, the later trans-
lations of the selfsame heretics control the former exceed-
ingly, not only of oversights, but of wilful falsifications, it
60
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
Hexam. lib.
6. cap. 4.
is a wilful and impudent slander ; yet you blush not to say,
it is notorious. How, I pray you ? You answer. In the later
editions of Luther and Beza, and m our Enghsh bibles set
forth in divers years, from Tyndal, their first translator.
That Luther, Beza, and the later translators of the Enghsh
bibles, have corrected some small faults that have escaped
in their former editions, it may be granted. But do Luther
and Beza therefore accuse themselves, or the later English
translators the former, of wilful falsifications? I tliink those
brute beasts, to whom Ambrose ^ ascribeth the art of making
syllogisms (if they could speak), would not conclude thus
brutishly. Certain it is that Balaam's ass did reason sub-
stantially. But much more, you say, the Enghsh translators
of Beza's New Testament do control him and his transla-
tion, being sometimes afraid and ashamed to express his
false translations. If it be so, they are more modest than
you, which seem to be afraid or ashamed of nothing so
much, as lest you might seem to fail in unshamefacedness.
But to the purpose. If they thinlc Beza (as all men may
err) hath somewhat trodden awry, is it a fault to avoid his
step, or a proud controlhng or accusing him of falsification ?
Nevertheless, whereinsoever Luther, Beza, or the Enghsh
translators, have reformed any of their former oversights,
the matter is not so great, that it can make an heresy.
Yea, if you were of St Augustine's judgment, you would
acknowledge that the multitude and diversity of translations
is for the benefit of them that be ignorant in the tongues,
yea, and of them also that be learned in them oftentimes,
that of divers men's translations they may judge which is
the aptest.
Martin. But in this catalogue of dissensions, falsifiers, and dis-
agreeing translators, I will not greatly rip up old faults, neither abroad
ii. 23,'iii.2i. uor at lioHie. I leave Luther's false translations mto the German
French"and' tongue to the Credit of Staphylus, Apolog., Part, ii., and Emserus,
ruiftions'of P'>'eef' Annot. in no. Test. Luth., and other German writers of his own
\} Ursa insidians licet, ut scriptura ait, (est enim plena fraudis fera,)
tamen fertur informes utero partus edere, sed natos luigua fingere, at-
que in speciem sui similitudinemque formare. Non miraris in fera tam
pii oris officia, cujus naturam pietas exprimit? Ursa igitur partus suos
ad sui effingit similitudinem : tu filios tuos instituere simUes tui non
potes? — Hexaemeron. Lib. vi. cap. 4. p. 18. Ambrosii Opera, Vol. i.
p. 119.]
De noct.
Christ, lib.
2. cap. 11.
Martin,
25.
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 61
time, that saw them and read them, and reckoned the number of them, the New
in the New Testament only about 1400 heretical corruptions. I leave See Lind. '
Calvin's and Beza's French corruptions to so many worthy men as8,'i"&c.''
have noted them in their French books against the said heretics : thfrest"''
Tindal's and his companions' corruptions in their first English bible,
to our learned countrymen of that age, and namely to the right
reverend father and confessor bishop Tonstal, who in a sennon openly
protested that he had found in the New Testament only no less than
two thousand. If we know it not, or will not believe it, strangers in Lind. Dub.
their Latin Avritings testify it to the world.
Fulke. We are much beholding to you, that you will not Fulke,
rip up old faults abroad, nor at home ; and leave Luther's ^'^'
Dutch translation with a 1400 heretical corruptions in the
New Testament only, with Calvin's and Beza's French cor-
ruptions noted by Vigor, and the rest : also Tyndal's and,
his companions' corruptions in their first Enghsh bible, in
whose translation of the New Testament bishop Tonstal pro-
fessed openly in a sermon, that he found no less than two thou-
sand corruptions. This you know he protested with the same
tongue with which he forsware the pope, and sware to the
king's supremacy, and with wliich he preached a solemn
sermon, wliich is in print, before the king, against the pope's
usurped tyranny, pride, false doctrine, covetousness, cruelty,
treason, perverting of scriptures, as in the same sermon more
at large it appeareth ; and therefore we need not Lindanus's
writing to testify of his credit. But thanks be to God,
that when you have scraped all that unto you seemed to
have any shew of corruption, you cannot find two hundred
faults in the translation of the whole bible, nor in three
several translations of the same ; which points you are fain
to dilate with such vain tautologies and repetitions, that
all learned men are ashamed of your tedious writing : and yet,
to make your book to be of some tolerable length, you had
no better shift than to note a sort of Beza's corruptions in his
Latin Testament; who, if you would write against him in
Latin any thing worth the noting, would thank you for your
pains, and reform liis errors ; but if you brought nothing but
cavils, would so shake you up, as you should have small
joy of your insolent invective : but you provided well for that,
by writing against a Frenchman in Enghsh. And as for the
number of errors or corruptions that you would have the
ignorant believe to be in our English translations, you think
62 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
is SO great, as must needs make the simple abhor it. But
look homeward a little into your authentical vulgar Latin
translation, how many faults be in that, which your Tridentine
council hath authorised. And here I will not charge it with
the adversaries thereof, as you do ours, but with great friends
of it and your doctrine ; Lindanus, bishop of Ruremond, and
Isidorus Clarius^ monk of Casine, and bishop Fulginatensis : of
De Opt Gen. which the former writeth a whole book, discussing; how he
interp. lib. i i i i • •
3- would have the errors, vices, corruptions, additions, detractions,
mutations, uncertainties, obscurities, pollutions, barbarisms,
and solecisms of the vulgar Latin translation corrected and
reformed ; bringing many examples of every kind, in several
ti" to'the'^' ^^^^pt^^^ ^^d sections : the other, Isidorus Clarius, giving a
ptntedat reason of his purpose, in castigation of the said vulgar Latin
jL^^^ss't! translation, confesseth that it was full of errors almost innu-
merable ; which if he should have reformed all according to the
Hebrew verity, he could not have set forth the vulgar edition,
as his purpose was. Therefore in many places he retaineth the
accustomed translation, but in his annotations admonisheth the
reader, how it is in the Hebrew. And, notwithstanding tliis
moderation, he acknowledgeth that about eight thousand places
are by liim so noted and corrected ^ This epistle the deputies
P Isidore Clarius, or de Clario, bishop of Foligno, bom in 1495,
in his youth a Benedictine of the monastery of Mount-Cassin. He dis-
tinguished himself greatly by his eloquence and talent on several occasions,
principally at the council of Trent, in the disputes upon the authority
of the text and versions of scripture. After having discussed the
different translations, he decides that none of them are eqmvalent to
the text of the original, though the version of Jerome, having been
used for a thousand years in the church, was entitled to preference over
the rest. In consequence of his stating m his Preface to an edition of
the Vulgate (1542) that he had corrected eight thousand passages in
it, his work was put among the prohibited, but subsequently allowed
to be sold, with the suppression of the preface and prolegomena.
The work to which Fulke here makes allusion is, Vulgata editio
Veteris et Noin Tesiamenti, quorum alterum ad Hebraicam, alterum ad
Grcecam veritatem emendatum est quam diligentissime, ut nova editio non
facile desideretur, et vetus tamen hie agnoscatur. Venetiis. 1542, 1557,
and 1564, fol.]
P Nam in his horum omnium studiis atque laboribus editio ilia, qua
totus Christianus orbis utitur, ac semper, ut facile conjocto,usurus est,
nondum squalorem suum deposuerat, nee ei quisquam errores, quibus
innumeris pene scatebat, adimere adhuc curaverat. " • " • Verum etsi ea.
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 63
of the council of Trent could not abide ; and therefore in the
later edition of this bible, set forth with observation of their
censure, 1569, it is clean left out ; as also a goodly collection
of the same Isidorus, of places of scripture, exhorting to the
study of holy scripture, and a like sound confession of those
things which the scriptures teach, &c.
Martin. But I omit these, as unknown to our country or to this Martin,
age, and will deal principally with the English translations of our time,
which are in every man's hands within our country ; the corruptions The au-
whereof, as they are partly touched here and there in the Annotations in*this book.
upon the late new English Testament catholicly translated and printed
at Rheims, so by occasion thereof I will by God's help, to the better
commodity of the reader and evidence of the thing, lay them closer
together, and more largely display them, not counting the number,
because it were hard, but esteeming the weight and importance of so '
many as I thought good to note, specially in the New Testament.
Where I have to advertise the reader of certain special things, which
he must observe.
FulJce. You should rather omit them as untrue ; for albeit Fulke,
it cannot be denied but some faults may escape the most
faithful and diligent translator, yet so many heretical corrup-
tions, either in the Dutch or English, are incredible, and turn
rather to the discredit of the accuser, in all wise men's judg-
ment, than to the parties so charged; in like manner as
Surius^ noteth no less than eleven thousand lies in Sleidan,
quam diximus, usi fuerimus moderatione, loca tamen ad octo millia
annotata atque emendata a nobis sunt. — ;Isid. Clarii Praefat. In Vulg.
Edit. 1542.]
[^ The following passage wiU enable the reader to estimate the
value of the opinion of Surius :
Pestis hoc anno multis locis plurimos extinxit, praesertim Argen-
tinse et in locis Rhenanis, et inter alios etiam Johannem Sleidanum,
qui suis commentariis magnam orbi Christiano pestem invexit. Decre-
verant contra Ulum scribere viri duo longe clarissimi, Coloniae Agrip-
pinae preclara lumina, Johannes GrofFerus designatus CardinaUs, et
Eberhardus Billicus Carmelitanus Provincialis, si et Sleidano et ipsis
vita prolixior contigisset. Nemo me putet hominis illius odio saepius
ilium perstringere. Mihi ille nee de facie unquam notus fuit. Men-
dacia et errores tetros Ulius detestor. Multi, immo plurimi, norunt
Julium Pflugium Numbergensem Episcopum, quo oh multam aetatem
nemo fere melius noverat res imperii. Is Sleidani Commentarios
volebat sibi a quodam mihi notissimo, qui turn in ejus aula versaba-
tur, legi. Porro vero inter legendum cum advertere res ipsi notas mala
fide a Sleidano narrari, saepius exclamabat, Ibi nebulo ille scelerate
64
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
Martin,
27.
Certain
advertise-
ments to the
reader.
FuiiKE,
27.
Martin,
28.
Fui.KE,
28.
(more to his own reproach, than to the defacing of Sleidan's
credit,) you profess wisely, therefore, not to count the num-
ber, but to esteem the weight and importance of such faults
as you thought good to note, if there were as great faithfulness
in your performance, as there is wisdom in your profession.
But now to your nine advertisements to the reader.
Martin. First, that in this book he may not look for the proof
or expUcation and deciding of controversies, which is done in the
Annotations upon the New Testament, but only the rcfutuig or con-
trolling of their false translations concerning the said controversies,
which is the peculiar argument of this treatise.
FulJce. I think there is no wise reader would look for
the deciding of so many controversies in so small a book ; and
he that shall seek them in your Annotations, shall find even
as httle to the purpose, except he will take your determina-
tion without proof for a sufficient decision. As for the doc-
tors you quote without judgment, fraudulently, falsely, trun-
cately, and otherwise abusively, [they] have all, or the most,
been answered long ago ; and if need shall be, with little
labour may be answered again.
Martin. Secondly, that we refute sometime one of their transla-
tions, sometime another, and eveiy one as their falsehood giveth occa-
sion. Neither is it a good defence for the falsehood of one, that it is
truly translated in another; the reader being deceived by any one,
because commonly he readeth but one. Yea, one of them is a con-
demnation of the other.
Fulke. That sheweth yom- mahce rather than either
wisdom or honesty ; for if we ourselves in our later trans-
lations have corrected some small and few errors, that have
overslipped us in our former translations, we have shewed
our sincerity and care of setting out the truth by all means.
And where you say it is no good defence, the reader being
mentitur. Quin et Carolus V. integerrimus et potentissimus imperator,
cum ipsi quoque legerentur Commentarii Sleidani, itidem subinde ex-
clamabat, Nebulo ille mentitur, nebulo ille mentitur. Et sane datimi
erat ab eodem imperatore negotium cuidam, ut comitiorum acta, ob
Sleidani mendacia confutanda, sincere excuderentur ; sed nescio quo
casu res ilia impedita fuit, et omnia in Hispanas transferri jussa fe-
runtur. Certe hseretico homini nunquam tuto credi potest. — Surii
Commentarius brevis rerum in orbe gestarum, pp. 870, 371. Colonise.
1574.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 65
deceived by any one, because commonly he readeth but one;
I answer you first, there is not in the worst translation any
fault escaped, that may of itself lead him into a damnable
error. Secondly, he hath the word of God expounded by
catechising, sermons, and lectures, in which he may learn
the substance of christian rehgion. Thirdly, he hath at
hand every where learned divines, unto whose counsel he
may resort, if he be offended with anytliing that he readeth
in his bible, sounding contrary to the pubhcly received doc-
trine of the chm'ch. In that you say the one of our trans-
lations condemneth the other, it had been sufficient to have
said, reproveth : which is only where there is a manifest error
in the one ; for otherwise, the diversities of translations, (as
St Augustine teacheth you,) may much profit the simple .
readers ; and they that be diligent students of the scriptures
in the Enghsh tongue wUl not satisfy themselves with every
translation, but will seek for the best approved.
Martin. Thirdly, that we speak indifferently against Protestants, Martin,
Calvinists, Bezites, and Puritans, without any curious distinction of29-
them, being all among themselves brethren and pew-fellows^ and
sometime the one sort of them, sometime the other, more or less
corrupting the holy scriptures.
FulJce. A wise advertisement. But tliis is to be noted, Fulke,
that now you acknowledge them to be all brethren among "
themselves, and pew-fellows ; but when you hst, they shall
be at deadly feud one against another, and no commimity
or fellowship between them.
Martin. Fourthly, that we give but a taste of their corruptions. Wart in,
not seeing so far, nor marking all so narrowly and skilfully, as them- ^ ■
selves know their own subtleties and meanings, who will smile at the
places which we have not espied.
Fulke. He that considereth your quarrels picked to words Fclke,
of one signification, as "church" and " congregation," "justice"
and "righteousness," "elder" and "priest," "image" and "idol,"
"works" and " deeds," and such hke, will not think that you
have passed over any great matters worth the writing of ; but
that you would set a vain brag of the case, as though there
were much worse matter than you have wit to conceive. Yet
you say confidently that we, as guilty of our own subtleties
and meanings, will smile at the places which you have not
[fulke.]
ee
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
espied. You are like to those soothsayers mentioned in
Tully, of whom one said that he marvelled if, when they met
together, one of them did not smile upon another, because
they deluded the city, and got themselves much honour with
such vain superstitions. So you, being newly become subtle
and partial translators, think other mien to be like your-
selves. But even as the head of yom' church^ once jested
with his cardinal, how great wealth and honoiu' that fable
of Christ (so the beast called the christian religion) had
brought them; even so you, his lewd limbs, make sport
among yourselves of the holy word of God, wliich you have
corrupted somewhat with your blind translations, but much
more with your heretical annotations. So said your great
friend, Campion, in open audience, that he could make as
good sport upon the incarnation of Christ. According to
your own affection, therefore, you judge of us, and not
according to the truth, as the day will try, when the secrets
of all hearts shall be made manifest.
Martin, Martin. Fifthly, that the very use and affectation of certain terms>
31' and avoiding other some, though it be no demonstration against them,
but that they may seem to defend it for true translation, yet was it
necessary to be noted, because it is and hath been always a token of
heretical meaning.
FuLKE, Fulh. When our translation is true, I doubt not but
o-i
we shaU defend the use of some terms, and the avoiding of
other some, by as good reason as you shall defend the like
in your translations ; especially where you affect new terms
unused, or not understood, and avoid common and usual terms
of the same signification, as evangcHzing for preaching the
gospel; advent of Christ for the coming of Clirist; scandaHzing
for offending; scandal for offence, &c. Which if it be, as you
say, always a token of heretical meaning, first pluck yourself
by the nose, and then see if we cannot defend our doings.
Martin, Martin. Sixthly, that in explicating these things we have endea-
voured to avoid, as much as was possible, the tediousness of Greek and
Hebrew words, which are only for the learned in these tongues, and
which made some little doubt whether this matter (which of necessity
must be examined by them) were to be written in English or no.
But being persuaded by those (who themselves have no skill in the
said tongues) that every reader might reap commodity thereby, to the
understanding and detesting of such false and heretical translations, it
p This is told of Leo X]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
67
was thought good to make it vulgar and common to all our dear
countrymen; as the New Testament itself is common, whereof this
discovery is as it were a handmaid, attending thereupon for the larger
explication and proof of corruptions there briefly touched, and for
supply of other some not there mentioned.
Fulke. He that seeth your margin painted with Greek Fulke,
and Hebrew words in so many places, may guess whether it
were possible for you to have avoided the tediousness of
them, when in divers places the Greek and Hebrew words are
set without all need of them, and sometimes where there is
no controversy about them, as in the fifth section of this
preface, where you shew the corruptions of the Arians and
Pelagians; and in the nineteenth section, where you would
shew the difference of the New Testament from the Old in
citinof of testimonies. But the Hebrew word in the Psalm
xxi, or xxii., which you falsely say signifieth no such thing as
" piercing," you set not down, lest your falsehood, by them that
have skill, might be convmced. And if you had cared as
much to find out the truth, as to shew your skiU in both the
tongues, you would have written in Latin, especially against
Beza, which never wrote in Enghsh. And vain it is, that you
pretend to make the matter common to your dear country-
men, that be unlearned ; for the judgment must rest in them
that have knowledge in the tongues, albeit you had written in
Latiu. It is all one, therefore, to the unlearned, as if you
had only said, there are many faults or corruptions, which in a
Latin book shall be cHscovered to the judgment of the learned,
seeing the ignorant cannot understand your demonstrations.
Martin. Seventhly, that all the English corruptions here noted and Martin,
refuted are either in all or some of their English Bibles printed in
these years, 1562^, 1577^ 1579'*. And if the corruption be in one bible,
not in another, commonly the said bible or bibles are noted in the
margin : if not, yet sure it is that it is in one of them, and so the reader
shall find it, if he find it not always in his own bible. And in this case
the reader must be very wise and circumspect, that he think not by
and by we charge them falsely, because they can shew him some later
edition that hath it not so as we say. For it is their common and
P The great bible, or that of Coverdale's translation, first printed
in 1635, and reprinted by Cranmer's direction 1539. The edition of
1662, revised by Parker, will be quoted in the present volume for the
Old, and that of 1639 for the New Testament, as the case may require.]
P The Genevan and Bishops' bible were each printed in this year.]
.5—2
68 THE ANSWER TO THE PKEFACE.
known fasliion, not only in their translations of the bible, but in their
other books and writings, to alter and change, add and put out, in their
later editions, according as either themselves are ashamed of the former,
or their scholars, that print them again, dissent and disagree from their
masters. So hath Luther, Calvin, and Beza's writings and trans-
lations been changed both by themselves and their scholars in many
places; so that catholic men when they confute that which they find
evident faults in this or that edition, fear nothing more than that the
reader hath some other edition, where they are corrected for very
shame, and so may conceive that there is no such thing, but that they
Touchinsj are accused wrongfully. For example : call to mind the late pretended
E^hOeT conference in the tower, where that matter was denied and faced out
for Luther's credit, by some one book or edition of his, which them-
selves and all the world knoweth, was most truly laid to his charge.
FuLKE, Fulke. First, this is untrue ; for some you have noted in
the New Testament printed 1580. Secondly, it is uncertain ;
for two of these translations might be printed in one year, and
so I think they were. Therefore I know not well which you
mean ; but I guess that the bible 1562 is that which was of
Doctor Coverdale's translation, most used in the church service
in king Edward's time. The bible 1577, I take to be that
which, being revised by divers bishops, was first printed in the
large volume, and authorised for the churches, about ten or
twelve years ago^. That of 1579^, I know not what translation
it be, except it be the same that was first printed at Geneva
in the beginning of the queen's majesty's reign. And this
conjecture, as the fittest I can make, I must follow, seeing
your note of distinction is as good as that fellow's, that would
know his master's horse by the bridle.
But it is a common and known fasliion, you say, used of
us, that not only in translations, but in other books and writ-
ings of ours, we alter and change, add and put to, in our later
editions. And who useth not so to do, if by later cogitations,
that often are wiser, he find anything meet to be changed?
Do not you papists use the same? Is Bristow's chapter of
obedience, in his Motives, nothing altered from the high treason
contained in the first edition ? Is nothing added, taken away,
or changed in your Jesus' Psalter, in any of your editions? Or
are you yourselves ashamed of the former? Or have your
[} Commonly called tlie Bishops' bible.]
[^ It is the Genevan bible printed at Edinburgli in this year, that
Martin quotes.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 69
scholars presumed to alter their masters' writings ? If you
have an evasion in these cases, I trust we are not so pent in,
but we may change our own writings without shame of the
former, or corruption in the latter. As for the example of
St James' epistle, denied (as you say) and faced out for
Luther's credit, [it] will serve you for no proof. For so far
off is it, that we or the world do know, that it was most truly
laid to his charge, that now we know of a certainty, that it
was a very slander, as false as it was common; seeing Luther's
words of that epistle are not absolute, but in comparison, as
is confessed by you, and found by some of us to be none
otherwise in deed, who have not stood upon one only book
or edition, but upon as many as they could come by, both in
the Latin and in the Dutch tongue.
Martin. Eighthly, in citing Beza, I mean always (unless I note Martin,
otherwise) his Latin translation of the New Testament, with his "^^•
annotations adjoined thereunto, printed in the year 1556.
Fulke. You were afraid, lest they that understood not Fulke,
Latin, for whose sake you wrote in Enghsh tliis treatise, might
take hurt by Beza's translations and annotations in Latin.
And if he liimseh' have espied and corrected any thing of
his first edition, that was either faulty or offensive, in his
two later editions ; with great equity, as though you were
the only man that had discovered his errors, you must let ^"''.is'^te''.
•J ^ . edition l.'ft).
all the unlearned in England know, what shameful corruptions X^t'camal
you have observed in Beza's translation or annotations. Greek"and^
in the vulgar
Latin.
Martin. Lastly and principally is to be noted, that we will not i\I.\nTix,
charge them with falsifying that which indeed is the true and authen- "^'^•
tical scripture, I mean the vulgar Latin bible, which so many years We charge
hath been of so great authority in the church of God, and with all withVorsak-
the ancient fathers of the Latin church, as is declared in the preface approved''
of the New Testament : though it is much to be noted, that as Luther, Jifo'ighTt'be
only in favour of his heresies, did wilfully forsake it, so the rest a"j''/tj"ir
followed, and do follow him at this day, for no other cause in the world, evident con-
but that it is against them. And therefore they inveigh against it, and
against the holy Council of Trent, for confirming the authority thereof, Pi'l!';^'''"*'
both in their special treatises thereof, and in all their writings where
they can take any occasion.
Fulke. In the margin, " You will not charge us with for- Filkk,
saking the old approved Latin text, though it be an ill sign '^•'-
70
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE,
and to our evident confusion." St Augustine^, although a mere
Latin man, whom you yourself do after confess to have un-
derstood but one tongue well, and that was even his mother
tongue, learned (as he confesseth) of his nurses, is not so
addicted to the Latin translation, but that he would have
men to seek to the Hebrew and Greek fountains, which you,
like a blaphemous hypocrite, deny to be the true and authen-
tical scriptures indeed ; allowing only the vulgar Latin trans-
lation, as though neither the churches of Greece, Syria, Ar-
menia, ^Ethiopia, nor any other in the world, which have not
the vulgar Latin, had not the true and authentical scriptures.
And though your vulgar Latin hath for many years been of
great authority in the Latin church, from the time when the
knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek tongues have decayed ;
yet is it utterly false, that you say, that it hath been of great
authority with all the fathers of the Latin church ; whereas
there is not one that lived within 400 years after Christ that
knew it, but almost every one followed a several translation.
And St Augustine in the place before cited telleth you, that
there were innumerable translations out of the Greek into
the Latin. Again, that your vulgar Latin is full of many
errors and corruptions, I have shewed by the confession of
Isidorus Clarius and Lindanus, two of your own profession ;
of wliich the one took pains by the Hebrew and Greek to
correct it, the other shewed means how it should be corrected.
And where you say that Luther and his followers forsook it
for none other cause in the world, but that it is against them,
it is utterly untrue. For beside that they have made clear
demonstration of many palpable errors therein, (which they
that have any forehead amongst you cannot deny,) they have
and do daily convince you of horrible heresies, even out of
your own corrupt vulgar translation. Finally, whosoever shall
read what Calvin and Kemnitius have written against the
[^ Ex hac Septuaginta interpretatione etiam in Latinam linguam
interpretatum est, quod ecclesise Latinae tenent. Quamvis non defuerit
temporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissimus et om-
nium trium linguarum peritus, qui non ex Graco, sed ex Hebraeo in
Latinum eloquium easdem scripturas converterit. — Augustinus, De
Civitate Dei. Lib. xviii. c. 43. Opera, Vol. vii. p. 525. See also the
passage from Augustine De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. ir. c. 11. Opera,
Vol. I. pars 1. pp. 24, 25, quoted at p. 47, begimiing, Contra ignota, &c.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 7l
council of Trent for authorising that translation, shall plainly
see that tliej had something else to allege against it, which
notlung at all concerneth their opinions, that be contrary to
the popish heresy.
Martin. And concerning their wilful and heretical avoiding thereof Martin,
in their new translations, what greater argument can there be than this, 2^*
that Luther, who before always had read with the cathohc church and
with all antiquity these words of St Paul, " Have not we power to i Cor. ix.
lead about a woman a sister, as also the rest of the apostles 1" and sororem.
in St Peter these words, " Labour that by good works you may make ^^' '
sure your vocation and election ;" suddenly, after he had contrary to
his profession taken " a mfe" (as he called her), and preached that all
other votaries might do the same, and that faith only justified, "good
works" were not necessary to salvation ; suddenly, I say, after he fell .
to these heresies, he began to read and translate the former scriptures
accordingly, thus : " Have not we power to lead about a sister a wipe,
as the rest of the apostles 1" and, " Labour that you may make sure
your vocation and election :" leaving out the other words, " by good
works." And so do both the Calvioists abroad, and our English Pro-
testants at home read and translate at this day, because they hold the
self-same heresies.
Fulke. If there be no greater argument, as you confess Fulke,
there can be none, that their avoiding of this vulgar Latin '
is wilful and heretical, than this, that Luther defended his
marriage, being a votary, by that text of 1 Cor. ix. wherein
the apostle chaUengeth power to lead about with him a sister
to wife, which your text hath mulierem sororem, " a woman a
sister ;" and that to prove that faith only justifieth, and good
works are not necessary to salvation, he left out of the text of
St Peter " good works/' by which the apostle exhorteth us
to make sure unto ourselves our vocation and election ; there
is none argument at all of wilful, needless, or heretical avoid-
ing. For although the marriage of ecclesiastical ministers
generally is proved by that scripture, yet the marriage of
votaries specially is nothmg confirmed. And for the marriage
of bishops, priests and deacons, your own translation" of 1 Tim.
iii. and Tit. i., both Latin and English, will warrant them to
[^ It behoveth therefore a bishop to be irreprehensible, the husband
of one wife. 1 Tim. i. 2. And shouldest ordain priests by cities, as I
also appointed thee ; if any be without crime, the husband of one wife.
Titus i. 5, 6. Rhemish Test. 1557.]
i'i THE ANSWER TO THE PREl'ACE.
be the husbands of one wife ; so that every child may see
that he needed not for that purpose to corrupt the text, 1. Cor.
ix. And as for the other texts, 2 Pet. i., although this word,
"by good works," is not expressed in the most Greek copies',
yet the whole circumstance of the place giveth it necessarily
to be understood ; and yet it maketh notliing against justifi-
cation by faith only. For our election, which is most certain
and immutable in God's determination, is made certainly known
unto us by good works, the fruits of justifying faith, even
as the eifects do necessarily prove the cause gone before. And
so doth Thomas Matthew's bible note, likewise the Bishops'
bible, and the Geneva bible ; for so I had rather call them,
than by the years in which they were once printed, which have
been often printed, and perhaps all in some one year. Cover-
dale's bible also addeth these words, "by good works," which
is read in some Greek copies. So true it is that you say,
we leave it out, because we hold the self-same heresy : as like-
wise that you slander us to hold, that good works are not
necessary to salvation; whereas we believe that good works
are as necessary to salvation as faith, in all them that are
justified by faith only. But because you are not able to with-
stand the truth which we believe, you feign odious monsters,
as dragons, centaurs, hydras, to fight withal before the peoj»le,
that you might get the praise of glorious conquerors, like St
George on horseback, that in a pageant vanquisheth an hide-
ous dragon made of paper or painted clothes.
INIartin, Martin. So do they in infinite places alter the old text, which
pleased them well before they were heretics ; and they do it with brasen
faces and plain protestation, having no shame nor remorse at all in
fleeing from that which aU antiquity with one consent allowed and
embraced until their unliappy days. Which though it be an evident
condemnation of their novelties in the sight of any reasonable man,
that hath any grace ; yet as I began to admonish thee, gentle reader,
we will not charge them for altering the ancient approved Latin trans-
lation, because they pretend to follow the Hebrew and Greek ; and our
purpose is not here to prove that they should not follow the Hebrew
and Greek that now is, before the ancient approved Latin text, which
is done briefly already in the preface to the New Testament.
FuLKE, Fulke. You were afraid behke to be overmatched in rail-
ing, and therefore you thought to bear us down at once
[' It is not admitted into the text by either Griesbach or Scholz.]
37.
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 73
with a whole flood of reproachful slanders ; and that you utter
even with the same face with which you affirm, that all an-
tiquity with one consent allowed and embraced your vulgar
Latin text : for what else you should mean I cannot con-
jecture, seeing you say afterward you will not charge us for
altering the ancient approved Latin translation. What say
you, Martin? Doth all antiquity with one consent allow and
embrace your vulgar Latin translation? What is the cause
then that the most of all antiquity of the Latin church used
not your vulgar Latin text ? Or dare you join issue with me,
that all the Latin doctors for 400 years after Christ used
none other Latin translation but that ? or that they aU knew
your vulgar Latin translation? You are never able to prove it.
The Seventy translation indeed was greatly esteemed, and >
almost generally received in the Greek and Latin churches"^,
and out of it were innumerable Latin versions, as St Augus-
tine affirmeth. But your vulgar Latin followeth it not in
many places, as it were easy to shew if time and occasion
served, and I suppose you will not deny. As for the rea-
sons you bring in the preface to the New Testament, to
prove that we should not follow the Hebrew and Greek that
now is, before that ancient approved text ; when they come
to be considered, it shall appear how vain and frivolous they
are. But as for the Hebrew and Greek that now is, [it] may
easily be proved to be the same that always hath been ;
neither is there any diversity in sentence, howsoever some
copies, either through neghgence of the writer, or by any other
occasion, do vary from that which is commonly and most
generally received in some letters, syllables, or words.
Martin. Neither will we burden them for not following the vulgar Martin,
Latin text, when the same agreeth with most ancient Greek copies : '^'^•
which notwithstanding is great partiality in them, and must needs be th/mn'or
of an heretical wilful humour, that among the Greek copies themselves foriikin
they reject that which most agreeth with the vulgar Latin text, in the Greek
, ^ * copies that
places of controversies. Yet will we not, I say, neither in this case ^^^^ "'.'"'
lay falsehood and corruption to their charge, because they pretend to approved
translate the common Greek text of the New Testament, that is, one th'oighThis
certain copy. But here at the least let them shew their fidelity, and thetrlncre-
that they be true and exact translators. For here only shall they be tlaUtyr"^'
examined and called to account.
[^ August. De Civit. Dei. Lib. xviii. c. 43. Opera, Vol. vii. p. 843.]
74
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
FuLKE, Fulke. In translation we folloAv the common, usual, and
printed copies, as you do in your translation ; and yet you
know there be as many, yea, ten times as many diverse read-
ings m the Latin as are in the Greek : witness hereof the
bible printed at Antwerp by Christopher Plantine, 1567, of
Hentenius' castigation ; where the margins almost of every
leaf be full of diverse readings, obehsks, asterisks, stigmates,
signifying the variety that is in many copies, by adding, de-
tractmg, changmg.
Bib???e opt. The same is confessed by Arias Montanus.
pr et'. sc.'hb. Liudauus likewise acknowledgeth as much.
Of that which you say, we reject that which best agreeth
with the vulgar Latin in places of controversy, you bring
none example. But that among your diverse readings you
reject that which agreeth best with the Hebrew and with
the Greek in places of controversy, I will give you an ex-
ample. Gen. iii. 15., where the Hebrew truth teacheth, that
the seed of the woman shall break the serpent's head, and
the Greek translateth the pronoun in the masculine gender,
(he) meaning Christ, and some ancient copies of your vulgar
Latin have ipse; you nevertheless follow that blasphemous
corruption, that in these latter times hath been received in
your vulgar Latin bibles, and read still in your text ipsa, she;
which though you would wrest blasphemously to the virgin
Mary, which is proper to Christ, cannot by the circumstance
of the place be aptly referred to any but to Eve.
Martin, Martin. And if they follow sincerely their Greek and Hebrew text,
which they profess to foUow, and which they esteem the only authen-
ttieni for^for- ^^^^ *^^*' ^^ f^^ ^^ accuse them not of heretical corruption. But if
fai'se"trans''- ^* ^^^^ ^^ evidently proved, that they shrink from the same also, and
ownVebrew t^^^^s^^t'^ another thing, and that wilfully and of full intention to
and Greek countenance their false religion and wicked opinions, making the
scriptures to speak as they list; then we trust the indifferent reader,
for his own soul's sake, will easily see and conclude, that they have no
fear of God, no reverence of the scriptures, no conscience to deceive
their readers : he will perceive that the scriptures make against them,
which they so pervert and corrupt for their purpose; that neither
the Hebrew nor Greek text is for them, which they dare not trans-
late truly and sincerely; that their cause is naught, wliich needeth
such foul shifts; that they must needs know all this, and therefore
do wilfully against their conscience, and consequently are obstinate
heretics.
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
75
Fulke. We crave no pardon, if it can be proved that Fulke,
we have wilfully translated another thing than is contained
in the Hebrew and Greek, to maintain any false rehgion or
wicked opinion. Provided always, that if any translator, or
all the translators, have ignorantly erred in misunderstanding
any word or phrase of the Hebrew or Greek text, that if it
may be plainly shewed unto them, they acknowledging the
fault, they may not be charged with heretical corruption, from
which it is certain their intention was most free.
Martin. And the more to understand tlieir misery and wretched- Martin,
ness, before we enter to examine their translations, mark and gather ^^'
of all that which I have said in this preface, their manifold flights and
jumps from one shift to another, and how catholic writers have pursued
and chased them, and followed them, and driven them even to this '
extreme refuge and seely covert of false translation, where also they
must of necessity yield, or devise some new evasion, which we can-
not yet imagine.
Fulke. Hitherto I hope the indifferent reader will con- Fulkk,
fess, that you have driven us to no jumps nor shifts, but ^
only uttered your own malicious and unlearned quarrels. And
how popish writers have pursued and chased us to extreme
refuge, and seely covert of false translation, let it appear by
the learned answers^ of Mr Jewell, Mr Home, Mr Nowell,
Mr Bridges, Mr Calfhill, and others ; that I speak notliing of
P For instance, Jewel's Defence of the Apology of the Church of
England, contairung an answer to a certaia book lately set forth by
Mr Harding. Lond. 1564. Jewel's Answer to Mr Harding's book,
entitled a detection of certain errors. Lond. 1565. Jewel's Reply to
Mr Harding's Answer. Lond. 1566. — This was translated into Latin
by Whitaker.
Letters between Jewel and Dr Henry Cole.
Rastel's Return of Untruths, answered by Jewel. — This work has
hitherto escaped the notice of Jewel's biographers.
Feckenham's Declaration of scruples and stays of conscience toucliing
the oath of supremacy, answered by Home, bishop of Winchester,
Nowell's Reproof of a book entitled a proof of certain articles in
religion, denied by Master Jewel, set forth by Thos. Dorman. NoweU's
Reproof of Mr Dorman's Proof continued.
Nowell's Confutation of Dorman's last book, entitled a Defence
&c.
Bridges' Reply to the Horn-blast of Thos. Stapleton.
CaKhill's Answer to John Martiall's Treatise of the Cross.]
76
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE,
Martin,
41.
The divers
shifts and
flights that
the protest-
ants are
driv n unto
by the
cathohes, as
it were the
jumps and
turnings of
an hare be-
fore the
hounds.
FuLKE,
41.
mine own simple labom-s, who being one of the meanest,
having confuted ten or twelve of your popish treatises, can
receive no reply of any man, but only of poor Bristow, to
whom in this respect I confess myself more beholding than
to all the papists beside, saving that I have rejoined to liim
almost two years ago, and yet I hear not of his answer.
Martin. First, we are wont to make this offer (as we think) most
reasonable and indifferent : that forasmuch as the scriptures are diversely-
expounded of us and of them, they neither be tied to our interpretation,
nor we to theirs; but to put it to the arbitrement and judgment of the
ancient fathers, of general councils, of universal custom of times and
places in the catholic church. No, say they, we will be our own
judges and interpreters, or follow Luther, if we be Lutherans; Calvin,
if we be Calvinists; and so forth.
FulJce. For expounding of the scriptures, we will not
refuse the arbitrement and judgment of the ancient fathers,
of general councils, of universal custom of times and places
in the catholic church ; for this you say is your offer, which
was never refused of us, though you most falsely affirm,
that we say we will be our own judges and interpreters, or
follow Luther, if we be Lutherans ; Calvin, if we be Cal-
vinists, &c. Wlio ever said so, you shameless slanderer ?
What have you differing from us, wherein you have the
judgment of the ancient fathers, of general councils, of
universal custom of times and places in the catholic church ?
Unless perhaps you mean some wretched sopliistry, by dis-
joining these that you here seem to join together. And if
you so do, we must first ask you, whether you yom^selves
in all expositions of the scriptm^es will stand to the ar-
bitrement of every ancient father, or of every general council,
or of any custom in any time or place? I know, and you
cannot deny it, that you will stand to nothing, that is not
allowed by your pope, though fathers, councils, custom, time
or place, or all the world be against it, yea, the manifest
scripture, which is so plain that it needeth no exposition : as
the commandment against images in religion, Theodoret,
Gelasius, Vigilius, Chrysostora against transubstantiation,
Epiphanius against images, the sixth council of Constan-
tinople for condemnirig the pope of heresy, the councils of
Constance and Basil for deposing the popes, and decreeing
that the council is above the pope, and many other like
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 77
matters beside, in which you go clearly from the consent of
all antiquity for 600 years, as the bishop of Sarum hath
made plain demonstration, and you are not able to reply.
Martin. This being of itself a shameless shift, unless it be better Martin,
coloured, the next is to say, that the scriptures are easy and plain, and
sufficient of themselves to determine every matter, and therefore they
wUl be tried by the scriptures only. We ai-e content, because they will
needs have it so, and we allege unto them the books of Tobit, Eccle-
siasticus, Machabees. No, say they ; we admit none of these for scrip-
ture. ^VTiy so ? Are they not approved canonical by the same authority
of the church, of ancient councils and fathers, that the other books are ?
No matter, say they, Luther admitteth them not ; Calvm doth not
allow them.
Fulhe. That the scriptures are plain and easy to be Fulke,
understood, of them that use the ordinary means to come to
it, for all doctrine necessary to be known, and sufficient to
determine every matter, the Holy Ghost himself doth testify,
2 Tim. iii. and some of the ancient fathers also do bear wit-
ness, as Augustine, de Doct. Christ, lib. 2, Clirysostom, in Gen.
hom. 13, de verb. Esai. Vidi dominum, Sj-c. horn. 2.
If therefore you had the spirit of the ancient fathers,
you would be content to be tried by the scriptures, for re-
verence you owed to God's most holy and perfect writings ;
and not because we will have it so, who are content in
many controversies to be tried by the judgment of the
ancient fathers, or general councils, or miiversal custom of
times and places ; and m all controversies, wherein all the
ancient fathers, all councils, and universal custom of all
times and places do consent, if any think such things can be
brought against us, as it is falsely and sophistically bragged.
But whereas we refuse the books of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus,
Machabees, for canonical scripture, it is not (as you say
ridiculously) because Luther and Calvin admitted them not,
but because they are contrary to the canonical scriptures,
and were never received of the church of Israel for canonical,
nor of the cathohc church of Christ for more than 400 years
after Christ, as I have shewed before.
Martin. Well, let us go forward in their own dance. You allow at Martin,
the least the Jews' canonical books of the Old Testament, that is, all
that are extant in the Hebrew bible, and all of the New Testament
without exception. Yea, that we do. In these books then, will you be
I
7o THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
tried by the vulgar ancient Latin bible, only used in all the west church
above a thousand years ? No. Will you be tried by the Greek bible
of the Septuagint interpreters, so renowned and authorised in our
Saviour's own speeches, in the evangelists' and apostles' writings, in the
whole Greek church evermore? No. How then will you be tried?
They answer, only by the Hebrew bible that now is, and as now it is
pointed with vowels. Will you so ? and do you think that only
the true authentical Hebrew, which the Holy Ghost did first put into
the pens of those sacred writers? We do think it (say they), and
esteem it the only authentical and true scripture of the Old Testament.
FuLKE, Fulke. Where so many of youi' own popish writers do
accuse your vulgar Latin text of innumerable corruptions, what
reason is there, that we should follow that translation only ;
especially seeing God hath given us knowledge of the tongues,
that we may resort to the fountains themselves, as St Au-
gustine exhorteth ? As for the Greek translation of the Sep-
tuagint, from which yom' own vulgar Latin varieth, (although
we reverence it for the antiquity, and use it for interpreta-
tion of some obscure places in the Hebrew,) why should you
require us to be tried thereby, which will not be tried by
it yourselves ? If I were as captious as you are with John
Keltridge about the Greek bible of the Septuagint interpre-
ters, I might make sport with you, as you do with him : but
I acknowledge your synecdoche^ that you mean the Old Tes-
tament only, whereas the word bible is commonly taken for
both. But to the purpose : we acknowledge the text of the
Old Testament in Hebrew and Chaldee, (for in the Chaldee
tongue were some parts of it written,) as it is now printed
with vowels, to be the only fountain, out of which we must
draw the pure truth of the scriptures for the Old Testament,
adjoining herewith the testimony of the Mazzoreth, where
any diversity of points, letters, or words, is noted to have
been in sundry ancient copies, to discern that which is proper
to the whole context, from that which by error of the writers
or printers hath been brought into any copy, old or new.
Martin, Martin. We ask them again. What say you then to that place of
^' the psalm, where in the Hebrew it is thus, " As a Hon my hands and
nKD my feet," for that which in truth should be thus, "They digged or
pierced my hands and i?iy feet ;" being an evident prophecy of Christ's
nailing to the cross ? There indeed (say they) we follow not the He-
brew, but the Greek text. Sometimes then you follow the Greek, and
not the Hebrew only. And what if the same Greek text make for the
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 79
catholics, as in these places for example, " I have inclined my heart
to keep thy justifications for reward," and " Redeem thy sins with
alms ;•' might we not obtain here the like favour at your hands for the
Greek text, specially when the Hebrew doth not disagree? No, say
they, nor in no other place where the Greek is never so plain, if the
Hebrew word at the least may be any otherwise interpreted, and drawn
to another signification.
Fulke. We say to you first, that you have falsely pointed Fulke,
the Hebrew word in the margin ; for aU the printed books
that ever I have seen, as Bomberg, both in fol/io and
quarto, Stephanus, Basil, Plantine, Arias Montanus, Com-
plutensis, all place camels under ca'ph, where you make patacli.
But perhaps yom' Hebrew is most out of Munster's dictionary,
where it is pointed as you make it. But for answer to your "
question, we say, that there is a double testimony of the
Mazzorites to prove, that in the most ancient and best
corrected copies the Hebrew was cam, "they have digged or
pierced": this is testified not only by our translators, but
also by Johannes Isaac, your own rabbin, against Lindanus,
a prelate of yours. And tliis the authors of the Complutensian
edition do acknowledge ; for thus they have pointed it, caru, ii><3
where is nothing but the redundance of alepli (which is un-
derstood in every camets) differing from the usual reading
and declining of the verb cardh, that signifieth " to pierce or n-ia
dig." Again, where it is read otherwise, if it be rightly
pointed, as it is in Arias Montanus, caari, it cannot sig- f^^^a
nify sxcut leo, " as a lion," as both the Mazzorites do teach, "'^
and Johannes Isaac, a grammarian, out of them by the points
and the note over iod doth plainly demonstrate. For what
should shurech sound in iodf or if you would contend it
should be daghes, to what purpose should it be in iod, if
the word should signify "as a lion"? Therefore, how-
soever this variety of copies came, either by negligence of
some writers, or by corruption of the Jews, we have suf-
ficient warrant for the ancient and true reading, which the
Greek translator did follow, which also was in St Jerome's
copy ; otherwise he would not have translated out of the
Hebrew fixerunt, " they have pierced." Therefore Eabbi Jo-
seph, which made the Chaldee paraphrase upon the Psalter,
laboured to express both the copies, as well that which hath
plainly "they have pierced," as that which hath it corruptly,
80
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
rn33
as though it spake of a Hon, and yet cannot rightly be so
translated, because the points are imperfect even for that
reading. Therefore he hath said, nikethin Jieich cheariah,
" they have indented and pierced like a hon my hands and
my feet," as it is in the Venice print of Daniel Bomberg, al-
though Arias Montanus, in his bible, have no more but
nachethin, which he translateth, " biting my hands and my
feet." I have played the fool to utter these matters in the
mother tongue to ignorant men, that can make no trial of
them; but you have not only given me example, but also
enforced me with yom* insoluble question (as you thought),
by one word somewhat out of fi'ame, to overthrow the whole
Hebrew text. But you are to be pardoned, for that you
follow yom* Mr Lindanus herein, who hath noticing else in
effect to quarrel against the Hebrew text, but this ; and
therefore he repeateth it in many places, to make greater
shew of it, as you do. In other places, where the Hebrew
word hath divers significations, who shall forbid us to choose
that which is most agreeable to the circumstance of the
text, and to the analogy or rule of faith?
JMartin,
45.
FULKE,
45.
Pra?fat. in
pent.
Martin. We reply again and say unto them, Wliy ? Is not the
credit of those Septuagint interpreters, who themselves were Jews,
and best learned in their own tongue, and (as St Augustine often, and
other ancient fathers say) were inspired with the Holy Ghost in trans-
lating the Hebrew bible into Greek, — is not their credit, I say, in
determining and defining the signification of the Hebrew word, far
greater than yours? No. Is not the authority of all the ancient
fathers, both Greek and Latin, that followed them, equivalent in this
case to your judgment? No, say they; but because we find some
ambiguity in the Hebrew, we will take the advantage, and we will
determine and limit it to our purpose.
Fulhe. St Jerome abimdantly answereth this cavil, de-
nying that supposed inspiration, and deriding the fable of
their 70 cells', (wliich yet pleased Augustine greatly,) yea,
calling in question, whether any more were translated by
them, than the five books of Moses ; because Aris-
taeus, a writer in Ptolemy's time, and after him Josephus,
make mention of no more. The same cause therefore, that
moved St Jerome to translate out of the Hebrew, moveth
us : whose translation, if we had it sound and perfect, might
[' See before, p. 52.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 81
much further us for the same purpose : although for the
signification of the Hebrew words we require no more credit,
than that which all they that be learned in the Hebrew
tongue, must be forced to yield unto us. And seemg your
vidgar Latin departeth from the Septuagint interpretation,
even in the books of Moses, which (if any be theirs) may
most rightly be accounted theirs, because it is certain they
translated them, although it be not certain whether they
translated the rest : with what equity do you require us to
credit them, wliich your own vulgar translation affirmeth to
have translated amiss, as I have shewn before in the example
of Cainan's generation? Another example you have in the
4th of Genesis, Nonne si bene egeris recipies, 8ic. " If thou
shalt do well, shalt thou not receive ? but if thou shalt do'
evil, straightway thy sins shalt be present in the doors."
The Greek text hath, Ovk civ 6p6m TrpoaeveyKr]^, &c. "Not
if thou hast rightly offered, but thou hast not rightly di-
vided ; hast thou sinned ? be still." Where yom* translation
Cometh much nearer to the Hebrew, as might be shewed in
very many examples. As for the ancient fathers' credit of
the Greek church, and the Latin that followed them, if our
judgment alone be not equivalent unto them, yet let these
ancient fathers, Origen and Jerome, — ^that thought them not
sufficient to be followed, and therefore gathered or framed
other interpretations, — let their judgment, I say, joining with
ours, discharge us of tliis fond and envious accusation.
Martin. Again, we condescend to their wilfulness, and say: What iNrAnxTN,
if the Hebrew be not ambiguous, but so plain and certain to signify one "*"•
thing, that it cannot be plainer ? As, " Thou shalt not leave my soul Psal. xv.
in hell;" which proveth for us, that Christ in soul descended into hell, s'^j^^^ ^,55
Is not the one Hebrew word as proper for soul, as anima in Latin? • ' '•"•■
the other, as proper and usual for hell, as infernus in Latin ? Here
then at the least will you yield ? No, say they, not here neither ; for
Beza telleth us, that the word which commonly and usually signifieth
" soul," yet for a purpose, if a man will strain, it may signify not only
" body," but also " carcase," and so he translateth it. But Beza (say
we), being admonished by his friends, corrected it in his later edition.
Yea, say they, he was content to change his translation, but not his
opinion concerning the Hebrew word, as himself protesteth.
Fulhe. You have chosen a text for example, wherein Fulke,
is least colour (except it be with the unlearned) of an bun-
[FtlLKE.J
82 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
dred. For whereas you ask, whether nephesh be not as
proper for soul as anima in Latin, and sheol for hell as
infernus in Latin ; I utterly deny both the one and the other.
For nephesh is properly the life, and sheol the grave or pit,
though it may sometimes be taken for hell, which is a con-
sequent of the death of the ungodly, as nepliesh is taken
for person, or one's self, or (as it is sometimes) for a dead
carcase. Yea, there be that hold, that it is never taken
for the reasonable immortal soul of a man, as anima is,
specially of ecclesiastical writers. That Beza translated the
Greek of the New Testament after the sifrnification of the
Hebrew words, although it was true in sense, yet in mine
opinion it was not proper in words ; and therefore he liim-
self hath corrected it in his latter editions, as you confess :
he hath not changed his opinion concerning the Hebrew :
the reason is, because it is grounded upon manifest texts of
scripture, which he citeth, Levit. xix. 27, and xxi. 1, and
11. Num. v. 2, and ix. 10. In the first place your own
vulgar Latin translation for lanephesh turneth mortuo : you
shall not cut your flesh for one that is dead. In the second
place your vulgar Latin hath, Ne non contaminetur sacerdos
in mortihus ; and, Adomnem mortuum non ingredietur oninino :
Let not the priest be defiled with the deaths of liis coun-
trymen ; and, The high priest shaU not enter in to any dead
jwf:b-2 byi body at all : where the Hebrew is knephesh, and nt^23~b5 b^
K3»* itb m ^^'' ^^ ^'^' ^^ ^^^^ third place your vulgar Latin readeth
■^ • ■■ pollut'usque est super mortuo, they shall cast out him that is
vvT polluted by touching a dead carcase ; where the Hebrew is
lanephesh. In the first place your vulgar Latin hath indeed
anima, but in the same sense, that it had before mortuo : for
the text is of liim that is unclean by touching any dead
body, which in Hebrew is nephesh. How say you now, is the
Hebrew word as proper for soul as anima in Latin ? — except
you will say, the Latin word anima doth properly signify
a dead body. Hath not Beza good reason to retain his opinion
concerning the Hebrew word, when he hath the authority of
your own vulgar translation ? You that note such jumps
and shifts in us, whither will you leap to save your honesty?
Will you say, the Hebrew text is corrupted since your trans-
lation was drawn out of it ? The Seventy interpreters
then will cry out against you : for they with one mouth,
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 83
in all these places, for the Hebrew word nepliesTi render the
usual signification y^rv^v^ adding in the xxi. of Lev. 11,
T€T€XevTTjKv7a, which either you must translate a dead body,
or you shall call it absurdly a dead soul. Would any man
thmk to have found in you either such gross ignorance, or
shameful neghgence, or intolerable malice against the truth,
that, Beza sending you to the places, either you would not
or you could not examine them ; or if you did examine
them, that you would notwithstanding thus mahciously,
against your own knowledge and conscience, rail against
him ? You make us to say, if a man will strain the word,
it may signify not only body, but also carcase. What say
you ? did Moses strain the word to that signification ? You
said before, that we were at the jumps and turnings of an
hare before the hounds; such mighty hunters you are, and
we such fearful hares before you. I am not skilful in the
terms of hunting, but in plain English I will speak it, that if
all the traitorous wolves and foxes that be in the kennel at
Rhemes, would do their best to save your credit in this
section, nay, in this whole preface, they shall never be able
to maintain their own, with any indifferent reader.
Martin. Well then, doth it like you to read thus, according to Martin,
Beza's translation, "Thou shalt not leave my carcase in the grave ?"'^'^-
No; we are content to alter the word carcase, (which is not a seemly
word for our Saviour's body,) and yet we are loth to say soul; but if
we might, we would say rather "life," "person," as appeareth in the
margin of our bibles: but as for the Hebrew word that signifieth
hell, though the Greek and Latin bible throughout, the Greek and
Latin fathers in all their writings, as occasion serveth, do so read it
and understand it, yet wiU we never so translate it; but for "hell"
we will say "grave," in all such places of scripture as might infer
limbus patrum, if we should translate " hell." These are their shifts,
and turnings, and windings, in the Old Testament.
Fulke. I have shewed you before, that in the New Fulke,
Testament we like better to translate according to the^''*
proper and usual signification of the Greek word. But the
Hebrew word in the Old Testament may be translated, accord-
ing to the circumstance of the place, life, person, self, yea,
or dead body, and in some place perhaps carcase. You
follow us very near, to seek advantage of the English word
carcase, which commonly is taken in contempt, and therefore
6—2
84 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
we would not use it, speaking of the body of our Saviour
Christ, when it was dead. But you hunt yourself out of
breath, when you would bring the same contempt to the
Cadaver. Latin word cadaver, which Beza used. For cadaver sig-
nifieth generally a dead body of man or beast, and by your
vulgar Latin translator is used for the dead bodies of sacri-
fices, of saints and holy men, as indifferently as for carrion
TO TTTMfia. of beasts, or carcases of evil men : namely, in Job xxxix, 33,
"Wheresoever the dead body is, thither wUl the eagle resort;"
which similitude our Saviour Christ applieth to himself, Matt.
xxiv. 28, " Wheresoever the dead body is, thither will the
eagles be gathered ;" where he compareth himself to the dead
body, and the faithful to the eagles.
Now concerning the other Hebrew word, which you
say signifieth hell, because the Greek and vulgar Latin in-
terpreter do so translate it : when just occasion shall be
given afterward, cap. vii., I will shew that it properly signi-
fieth a grave, pit, or place for dead bodies; and that in this
place of the xvi. psalm it must needs so signify, not only
the latter part of the verse, expressing in other words that
which was said in the former, but also the apostle's proving
out of it the resurrection of Christ, do sufficiently declare.
If you have no place therefore in the scriptm'es, to prove
your limhus patrum, but where the Holy Ghost speaketh
of the death and burial of the fathers, no marvel though
you must strain the Hebrew word, which properly signifieth
grave, and the Greek word, which properly signifieth a dark
place, and especially the Latin, which signifieth generally a
low place : none of all the three words signifying hell, as we
commonly understand the word hell, properly and only, but
by a figure, where mention is made of the death of the
ungodly, whose reward is in hell. These be the poor shifts,
turnings and windings, that you have to wreath in those
fables of limhus patrum and purgatory, which the church
of God from the beginning of the world unto the coming
of Christ never heard of, nor many hundred years after
Christ, until the Montanists, or such like heathenish heretics,
brought in those fantasies.
Martin, Martin. In the New Testament, we ask them, will you be tried
by the ancient Latin translation, which is the text of the fathers and
the whole church ? No ; but we appeal to the Greek. AV^hat Greek ?
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 85
say we ; for there be sundry copies, and the best of them (as Beza
confesseth) agree with the said ancient Latin. For example, in St Peter's
words, " Labour that by good works you may make sure your vocation 2 Pet. i.
and election," doth this Greek copy please you ? No, say they ; we
appeal to that Greek copy which hath not these words, "by good
works ;" for otherwise we should grant the merit and efficacy of good
works toward salvation. And generally, to tell you at once, by what
Greek we will be tried, we like best the vulgar Greek text of the New
Testament, which is most common and in every man's hands.
Fulke. "We need not appeal to the Greek, for any Fulke,
thing you bring out of the vulgar Latin against us. As ^^'
for that text, 2 Pet. i. "Laboui' that by good works," &c., I '
have answered before in the 36th section. We hke well the
Latin, or that Greek copy wliich hath those words, "by good
works;" for we must needs understand them where they are
not expressed : and therefore you do impudently believe us
to say they do not please us. Calvin upon that text saith:
NonnuUi codices hahent bonis operibus; sed hoc de sensw nihil
mutat, quia subaudiendum est etiam si non exprimatur. " Some
books have, 'by good works'; but this changeth notliing of the
sense, for that must be miderstood although it be not ex-
pressed." The same tiling in effect saith Beza: "that our elec-
tion and vocation must be confirmed by the effects of faith,
that is, by the fruits of justice, &c. ; therefore in some copies
we find it added, 'by good works.' " So far off is it, that Beza
misliketh those words, that he citeth them to prove the per-
petual connection of election, vocation, justification, and sancti-
fication. This is therefore as wicked a slander of us, as it is
an untrue afiirmation of the vidgar Latin, that it is the text
of the fathers and the whole church ; whereby you shew
yourself to be a Donatist, to acknowledge no church, but
where the Latin text is occupied : so that m Greece, Syria,
Armenia, Ethiopia, and other parts of the world, where the
Latin text is not known or understood, there Christ hath
no church by yom' unadvised assertion. That we like best
the most common Greek text, I am sure that we do it
by as good reason, if not by better, than you in so great
diversities of the Latin text, who like best of that which
is most common and in every man's hands.
Martin. Well, say we, if you will needs have it so, take your iAFaktiv,
pleasure in choosing your text. And if you will stand to it, grant '^^•
us that Peter was chief among the apostles, because your own Greek
86 THE ANSWER TO THE PEEPACE.
Matt. X, text saith, " The first, Peter." No, saith Beza, we will grant you no
such thing ; for these words were added to the Greek text by one that
favoured Peter's primacy. Is it so? then you wiU not stand to this
Greek text neither? Not in this place, saith Beza.
FuLKE, Fulke. In granting Peter to be the first, we need not
grant him to be the chief ; and if we grant him to be the chief,
it followeth not that he is chief in authority. But if that were
granted, it is not necessary that he was head of the church.
And albeit that were also granted, the bishop of Rome could
gain nothing by it. But what saith Beza, where the text saith,
" the first Peter" ? If we must beUeve you, he saith, "No, we
will grant you no such thing ; for these words were added to
the Greek text by one that favoured Peter's primacy." I pray
you, Martin, where hath Beza those words ? will you never
leave this shameful forgery ? Beza, in the tenth of Matthew,
doth only ask the question : Quid si hoc rocabulum, &c. " What
if this word were added by some that would estabhsh the pri-
macy of Peter ? for nothing followeth that may agree with it."
This asketh Beza, but as an objection, which immediately after
he answereth, and concludeth that it is no addition, but a
natural word of the text found in all copies, confessed by
Theophylact, an enemy of the pope's primacy, and defendeth
it in the third of Mark (where it is not in the common Greek
copies, nor in the vulgar Latin) against Erasmus, who, finding
it in some Greek copies, thought it was mitruly added out
of Matthew. But Beza saith, £J(fo vero non duhito quin hwc
sit germana lectio: " But I doubt not but this is the true and
right reading of the text ;" and therefore he translateth Pri-
mum Simonem, " the first Simon," out of the few copies Eras-
mus speaketh of. Therefore it is an abominable slander to
charge him with following the common received text, where
it seemeth to make against you, when he contendeth for the
truth against the common text, yea, and against your own
vulgar Latin, to give you that which you make so great
account of, that Peter in the catalogue of the apostles was
first. So greatly he feareth to acknowledge that Peter was
called first ! and so true it is that you charge him to say, "No,
we will grant you no such thing ; for these words were added
to the Greek text by. one that favoured Peter's primacy !" I
hope your favourers, seeing your forgery thus manifestly dis-
covered, will give you less credit in other yom* shameless slan-
ders : at the leastwise this in equity I trust all papists will
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 87
grant, not to believe your report against any man's writing,
except tliey read it themselves. Now that this word " the first"
argueth no primacy or superiority, beside those places quoted
by Beza, Acts xxvi, 20, Rom. i. 8, and iii. 2, you may read
1 Par. xxiii. xxiv. where the posterity of Levi and Aaron are [• chron.
rehearsed, as they were appointed by David in their orders xxiv." 7.]'
or courses : Subuel primus, Bohobia jdrimus, sors prima Joiarib,
&c. where lest you should think of any headship or princi-
pality, because the Hebrew is sometime tt^J^"l, and the Greek
ap-^oyv, you may see that Subuel is called primus of the sons
of Gerson, when there is no more mention; and more expressly,
Eohobia is called primus of the sons of Eleazer, of whom it is
said, that he had no more sons ; and that Wi^l signifieth here
the first in order, it appeareth by those generations, where the
second, third, or fom^th, is named, as in the sons of Hebron
and of Oziel. Also in the sons of Semei, where Jehoth is
counted the first, Riza the second, Jaus and Beria, because
they increased not in sons, Avere accounted for one family. In
all which there is no other primacy than in the first lot of pB,Knn
Joiarib, where the Hebrew word is harishuon, and so follow
the rest in order, unto four and twenty com'ses. Therefore
there is no cause why we should not stand to the Greek text
in that place, neither did Beza ever deny to stand to it.
Martin. Let us see another place. You must grant us (say we) Maktin,
by tliis Greek text, that Chiist's very blood which was shed for us is
really in the chalice, because St Luke saith so in the Greek text. No,
saith Beza ; those Greek words came out of the margin into the text,
and therefore I translate not according to them, but according to that
which I think the truer Greek text, although I find it in no copies
in the world: and this his doing is maintained and justified by our See chap. i.
English Protestants in their writings of late. chap. xvii.
num. 11.
FulJce. Still Beza speaketh as you inspire into him, while Fulke,
he speaketh through your throat or quill. The truth is, Beza ^^'
saith, that either there is a manifest solcecophanes, that is,
an appearance of incongruity ; or else those words " which is
shed for you" seem to be added out of St Matthew ; or
else it is an error of the writer's, placing that in the nomi-
native case which should be in the dative : for in the
dative case did Basil read them in his Morals', 21. definition.
P Tovro TO TTOTijpiov 7] KaivT) 8iadr]Krj eo'riz' eV rS al^ari fiov, ra
vnep vficov iKxvvop.evM. Hie calix novum testamentum est in sanguine
88
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
Nevertheless, all our old books, saith Beza, had it so
written, as it is commonly printed, in the nominative case.
Here are three several distinctions, yet can you find none
but one proposition that you set down, as though it were
purely and absolutely afiirmed by Beza. Likewise, where you
speak of no copies in the world, you say more than Beza,
who speaketh but of such copies as he had; who, if he were
of no better conscience than you would have him seem to
be, might feign some copy in his own hands to salve the
matter. But the truth is, that since he wrote this, he found
one more ancient copy, both in Greek and Latin, which now
is at Cambridge, where this whole verse is wanting. But of
this matter, which somewhat concerneth myself particularly, I
shall have better occasion to write in the places by you quoted,
cap. I. 37, and cap. xvii. 11, where I will so justify that wliich
I have written before toucliing this place, as I trust all
learned and indifferent readers shall see how vainly you in-
sult against me, where you bewray grosser ignorance in Greek
phrases than ever I would have suspected in you, bemg ac-
counted the principal linguist of the seminary at Rhemes.
]\Iartin, Martin, Well, yet, say we, there are places in the same Greek
text, as plain for us as these now cited, where you cannot say, it came
1 Thess. ii. out of the margin, or it was added falsely to the text. As, " Stand
and hold fast the traditions," &c. : by this text we require that you
grant us traditions delivered by word of mouth, as well as the written
word, that is, the scriptures. No, say they, we know the Greek word
signifieth tradition, as plain as possibly ; but here and in the like places
we rather translate it " ordinances," " instructions," and what else soever.
Nay, sirs, say we, you cannot so answer the matter, for in other places
you translate it duly and truly " tradition ;" and why more in one
place than in another? They are ashamed to tell why; but they must
tell, and shame both themselves and the devil, if ever they think it
good to answer this treatise : as also, why they changed " congregation,"
which was always in their first translation, into " church" in their
later translations, and did not change likewise " ordinances" into " tra-
ditions," "elders" into "priests."
FULKE,
51.
Fulke. That the Thessalonians had some part of chris-
tian doctrine delivered by word of mouth, that is, by the
apostle's preaching, at such time as he did write unto them.
meo, qui pro vobis funditur. Basilii Moralia. Regula xxi. c. 3, Opera,
V. iii. p. 254. Edit. Gamier, Parisiis, 1722.]
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 89
and some part by his epistles, the text enforceth us to grant,
and we never purposed to deny: but that the church at this
day, or ever since the New Testament was written, had any
tradition by word of mouth of any matter necessary to sal-
vation, wliich was not contained in the Old or New Testa-
ment, we will never grant, neither shall you ever be able
out of this text or any text in the bible to prove. Make
your syllogisms when you dare, and you shall be answered.
But "we know," you say, "that the Greek word sig-
nifieth tradition as plain as possibly; but here, and in hke
places, we rather translate it ordinances, instructions, and what
else soever." We know that it signifieth tradition, constitu-
tion, instruction, precept ; also mancipation, treatise, treason :
for all these the Greek dictionaries do teach that it signi-
fieth. Therefore if in anyplace we have translated it "ordi-
nances", or " instructions", or " institutions", we have not
gone from the true signification of the word; neither can you
ever prove that the word signifieth such a doctrine only as
is taught by word of mouth, and is not or may not be put
in writing. But in other places you can tell us, that we
translate it duly and truly "tracUtion"; and you will know, why
more in one place than in another, affirming that we are
shamed to tell why. For my part, I was never of counsel
with any that translated the scriptures into Enghsh ; and
therefore it is possible I cannot sufficiently express what rea-
son moved the translators so to vary in the exposition of
one and the same word. Yet can I yield sufficient reason
that might lead them so to do, which I think they followed.
The papists do commonly so abuse the name of tradition,
which signifieth properly a delivery, or a thing dehvered, for
such a matter as is delivered only by word of mouth, and
so received from hand to hand, that it is never put in writing,
but hath his credit without the holy scriptures of God, as
the Jews had their cabala, and the scribes and Pharisees had
their traditions, beside the law of God ; and the Valentinian irenaeus,
heretics accused the scriptures, as insufficient of authority 2. ' '
and ambiguously written, and that the truth could not be
found in them by those that knew not the tradition, which
was not delivered by writing, but by word of mouth, just
as the papists do. This abusing of the word "tradition" might
be a sufficient cause for the translators to render the Greek
90 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
word, where it is taken for such doctrine as is beside the
commandment of God, by the name of tradition, as the word
is commonly taken. But where the Greek word is taken in
the good part, for that doctrine which is agreeable with the
holy scriptures, they might with good reason avoid it, as
you yourself do not always translate tradere, to betray, but
sometimes to dehver. So did the translators give these words,
"ordinances", "instructions", "institutions", or doctrine deli-
vered ; which do generally signify the same that tradition, but
have not the prejuchce of that partial signification in which the
papists use it, who, wheresoever they find tradition, straightway
imagine they have found a sufficient argument against the per-
fection and sufficiency of the holy scripture, and to bring in
all riff'-raff and trish-trash of man's doctrine, not only beside,
but also contrary to the manifest word of God, contained
in his most holy and perfect scriptures. To the shame of
the devU therefore, and of all popish maintainors of traditions
uncommanded by God, this reason may be yielded.
Now to answer you, why ecclesia was first translated "con-
gregation", and afterward "church" ; the reason that moved
the first translators, I tliink, was tliis : the word church of the
common people at that time was used ambiguously, both for
the assembly of the faitliful, and for the place in which they
assembled ; for the avoiding of which ambiguity they trans-
lated ecclesia the congregation ; and yet in their creed, and
in the notes of theu^ bibles, in preacliing and writing, they
used the word church for the same : the later translators,
seeing the people better instructed and able to discern, when
they read in the scriptures, the people from the place of
their meeting, used the Avord church in their translations, as
they did in their preaching. These are weighty matters
that we must give account of them. Why we change not
ordinances into traditions, and elders into priests, we will
answer when Ave come to the proper places of them. In the
mean season we thinlc, there is as good cause for us in trans-
lating, sometime to avoid the terms of traditions and priest,
as for you to avoid the names of elders, calling them ancients,
and the wise men sages, as though you had rather speak
French than English,, as we do : \\ke as you translate confide,
" have a good heart," after the French phrase, rather than
you would say as we do, "be of good comfort."
THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. 91
Martin. The cause is, that the name of church was at the first Martin,
odious untd them, because of the catholic church which stood against °'^'
them ; but afterward this name grew into more favour with them, be-
cause of their English church, so at length called and termed. But
their hatred of priests and traditions continueth stiU, as it first began ;
and therefore their translation also remaineth as before, suppressing the
names both of the one and of the other. But of all these their deal-
ings they shall be told in their several chapters and places.
Fidke. I pray you, who first translated the creed into Fulke,
the English tongue, and taught it to the people, and for ^2.
that cause were accounted heretics of the antichristian Ro-
mish rabble '? If the name of church were odious unto them,
why did they not suppress that name in the creed which
they taught to young and old, and instead of cathoUc church
call it the universal congregation or assembly ? Well, Davus,
these things be not aptly divided according to then* times.
The first translation of the bible, that was printed in the
English tongue, in very many places of the notes useth the
name church, and most notoriously in the Song of Salomon,
where before every other verse almost it telleth which is the
voice of the church to Christ her spouse ; which no reason-
able man would tliink the translators would have done, if
the name of the church had been odious unto them, or that
they thought the cathoHc church stood against them. Look
Thomas Matthews' bible, in the Canticles of Salomon, and
upon the xvi. of St Matthew's Gospel, the 18th verse, the
words of Christ to Peter. Therefore your senseless imagina-
tions shew no hatred of the cathoHc church in our translators,
but cankered mahce and impudent folly in yourselves.
Martin. To conclude, as I began, concerning their sliifts and jumps, Martin
and windings, and turnings eveiy way from one thing to another, till ^3.
they are driven to the extreme refuge of palpable corruptions and false
translations : consider with me in this one case only of traditions, as may
be likewise considered in all other controversies, that the ancient fathers,
councils, antiquity, universality, and custom of the whole church allow
traditions ; the canonical scriptures have them, the Latin text hath
them, the Greek text hath them ; only their translations have them not.
Likewise in the Old Testament, the approved Latin text hath such and
such speeches, that make for us ; the I'enowned Greek text hath it, the
Hebrew text hath it ; only their translations have it not.
These are the translations which we call heretical and wilful, and
which shall be examined and discussed in this book.
92 THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.
FuLKE, Fulke. By what windings and turnings, I pray you, are
we driven to that miserable refuge of palpable corruptions
and false translations ? for hitherto you have shewed none, but
such as shew your own ignorance or malice. Neither, I hope,
you shall be able to shew any, though you swear never so
sore at your work. Yes, I ween, this one case only of tradi-
tions, (for so you seem to say,) if it be considered, will discover
no less. It is marvel, if for your sake all the Greek diction-
aries in the world must not be corrected, and taught to say,
that irapaSoaris can signify notliing but a tradition, that is, not
written. But yet you roll in your accustomed rhetoric, say-
ing, that "the ancient fathers, councils, antiquity, universahty,
and custom of the whole church allow traditions :" and so do
we, so many as be good and agreeable to the holy scrip-
tures ; but that there be traditions of matter necessary to
salvation not contained in the holy scriptures, when you bring
your fathers, councils, &c. you shall receive an answer to
them. That the canonical scripture alloweth any traditions
contrary to the doctrine thereof, or to supply any want or
imperfection thereof, as though all things required to make
the man of God perfect, prepared to all good works, were
not contained in the scriptures, you shall never be able to
prove, although for spite against the perfection of the canoni-
cal scripture you should brast asunder, as Judas did, which
betrayed the author of the scripture. Finally, whatsoevei*
you say out of the Old Testament without proof or shew of
proof, it is as easily denied by us as it is affirmed by you.
When you bring but only a shadow of reason, it shall soon
be chased away with the light of truth.
THE
ARGUMENTS OF EVERY CHAPTER,
WITH THE PAGE WHERE EVERY CHAPTER BEGINNETH.
CHAPTER I.
PAGK
That the Protestants translate the holy Scripture falsely of pur-
pose, in favour of their heresies, throughout all controversies 95
CHAPTER II.
Against apostolical traditions 164
CHAPTER III.
Against sacred images 179
CHAPTER IV.
The ecclesiastical use of words turned into their original and
profane significations 217
CHAPTER V.
Against the Church 225
CHAPTER VI.
Against pi-iest and priesthood. Where much also is said of their
profaning of ecclesiastical words 240
CHAPTER VII.
Against purgatory, Limbus Patrum, and Christ's descending into
hell 278
CHAPTER VIII.
Concerning justification, and God's justice in rewarding good works 332
CHAPTER IX.
Against merits, meritorious works, and the reward for the same 343
CHAPTER X.
Against free will 375
CHAPTER XI.
For imputative justice against true inherent justice 401
94 THE ARGUMENTS OF EVERY CHAPTER.
CHAPTER XII.
PACfB
For special faith, vain security, and only faith' 415
CHAPTER XIII.
Against penance and satisfaction 428
CHAPTER XIV.
Against the holy sacraments, namely baptism, and confession ... 450
CHAPTER XV.
Against the sacrament of holy orders, and for the marriage of
priests and votaries 460
CHAPTER XVI.
Against the sacrament of matrimony 492
CHAPTER XVII.
Against the blessed sacrament, and sacrifice, and altars 497
CHAPTER XVIII.
Against the honour of saints, namely, of our blessed lady 526
CHAPTER XIX.
Against the distinction of Dulia and Latria 539
CHAPTER XX.
Adding to the text 547
CHAPTER XXI.
Other heretical treacheries and corruptions worthy of observa-
tion 557
CHAPTER XXII.
Other faults Judaical, profane, mere vanities, follies, and novelties 571
A DISCOVERY ^'^-^^^
MANIFOLD CORRUPTIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
BY THE HERETICS OF OUR DAYS, SPECIALLY THE ENGLISH
SECTARIES, AND OF THEIR FOUL DEALING HEREIN, BY
PARTIAL AND FALSE TRANSLATIONS TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF THEIR HERESIES, IN
THEIR ENGLISH BIBLES USED AND
AUTHORISED SINCE THE
TIME OF SCHISM.
CHAPTER I.
That the Protestants translate the holy Scriptures falsely
of purpose, in favour of their heresies.
Martin. Though this shall evidently appear throughout this whole Martin, 1.
book in every place that shall be objected unto them; yet because it
is an observation of greatest importance in this case, and which stiugeth
them sore, and toucheth their credit exceedingly, insomuch that one
of them setting a good face upon the matter saith confidently, that Confutation
all the papists in the world are not able to shew one place of scrip- fo. 35, p. 2. '
ture mistranslated wilfully of purpose ; therefore I will give the reader
certain brief observations and evident marks to know wilful corruptions,
as it were an abridgement and sum of this treatise.
Fulke. Although this trifling treatise was in hand two or Fulke, I .
three years ago, as by the threatening of Bristow ^ and Howlet
{} Richard Bristow, a most zealous advocate for the Roman Catholic
cause, was bom at Worcester in the beginning of the 16th Centuiy. He
left the University of Oxford in 1569, and becoming acquainted with
Dr Allen, was made public lecturer on Divinity at Doway. He wrote,
among other things, A brief treatise of divers plain and sure ways to
find out the truth in this doubtful and dangerous time of heresy, contain-
ing sundry motives unto the Catholic faith ; or, considerations to move a
man to believe the Catholics, and not the heretics. Antwerp, 1574. These
motives were answered by Fulke in his Retentive to stay good Christ-
ians in true faith and religion, against the motives of Richard Bristow.
London, 1580.
Bristow also wrote A Reply to William Fulke, in Defence of Dr
Allen's Scroul of Articles, and Book of Purgatry. Lovaine, 1580. To
96 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
it may appear ; yet, that it might seem new, and a sudden
piece of work compiled with small study, you thought good
by carping at my confutation of Howlet^ last made, and of
M. Whitaker's^ work, set forth later than it, as it were by
setting on new ears upon your old pot, to make it seem to
be a new vessel. And first of all, you would seem to have
taken occasion of my confident speech in my confutation of
Howlet's nine reasons^, in rehearsing whereof you use such
fidelity as commonly papists used to bear towards God, the
church, your prince, and your country. For what face so-
ever I set upon the matter, with a whorish forehead and a
brasen face you make report of my saying ; which, being
testified by a thousand copies printed, as it were by so many
witnesses, doth cry out upon your falsehood and injurious
dealing. For my words, out of the place by you quoted
Howiett*^ against Howlet, are these : "That some error may be in trans-
withl!."' lation (although by you it cannot be shewed) I will not deny ;
but that any shameless translations, or wilful corruptions, can
be found of purpose to draw the scriptures to any heretical
which Fulke rejoined the following year, in his book entitled A re-
joinder to Bristow's Replie in defence of Allen's Scroll of Articles and
Boohe of Purgatorie, S;c. 1581. p. 792. Wood's Athens, Vol. i. pp.
482—484.]
^ The Howlet here referred to was Persons the Jesuit, who pub-
lished under tliis name a treatise, entitled A brief Discourse, containing
the reasons why Catholics refuse to go to Church. Doway, 1580. It was
answered the same year, in A Check to Mr Howlet's Screechings to her
Majesty, (Wood's Athenae, Vol. v. pp. 68, 69.;) and in a Caveat for
Parson Howlet, 1581, (Hartshorne's Book Rarities of Cambridge, p. 442;)
and also by Fulke, in Howlet's Nine Reasons; and seems to be the same
book as the one just mentioned. Wood's Athenae, Vol. ii. p. 60, and
Possevinus in Apparat. Sacr. Vol. ii., under Robert Persons.]
[^ Wliitaker, a learned divine, and Master of St John's College, Cam-
bridge: the able antagonist of Cardinal BeUarmine, Stapleton, Cam-
pian, Saunders, Rainolds, &c. He died in 1595.]
P " A briefe confutation of a Papist Discourse : lately set forth, and
presumptuously dedicated to the Queen's most excellent Majestie: by
John Howlet, or some other birde of the night, under tliat name,
contayning certame Reasons, why Papistes refuse to come to Church,
which reasons are here inserted and set downe at large, with their
several answers. By D., Fulke, Maister of Pembroke Hall, in Cam-
bridge. Scene and allowed. At London, printed for George Byshop,
1681. qto. b. ]. 58 leaves."]
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 97
opinion, all the papists in the world shall never be able
to make demonstration." This was my saying, and I repeat
it again with as great confidence as before ; yea, and with
much greater too, forasmuch as all the papists in the semi-
nary, having now beaten their heads together to find out
" shameless translations and wilful corruptions of purpose to
maintain heresies," can find nothing but old frivolous quarrels
answered long before, or new trifling cavils, not worthy in-
deed of any learned man's answer, but for satisfying of the
simple and ignorant. How this my saying diifereth from
your slanderous report, I trust every reasonable papist that
will take pains to confer them together, will be enforced to
acknowledge. For where I say " shameless translations and
wilful corruptions," (as Howlet chargeth us), you report me to ,
say "mistranslated ;" although in plain words I did confess that
there might be some errors even in the best and perfectest
of our translations. For to translate out of one tongue into
another is a matter of greater difficulty than it is commonly
taken, I mean exactly to yield as much and no more than
the original containeth, when the words and phrases are so
different, that few are found which in all points signify the
same tiling, neither more nor less, in divers tongues. Where-
fore, notwithstanding any translation that can be made, the
knowledge of the tongues is necessary in the church, for the
perfect discussing of the sense and meaning of the holy scrip-
tures. Now, if some of our translators, or they all, have not
attained to the best and most proper expressing of the nature
of all words and phrases of the Hebrew and Greek tongue^ in
Enghsh, it is not the matter that I will stand to defend, nor
the translators themselves, I am well assured, if they were all
living : but that the scriptm-es are not impudently falsified
or wilfully corrupted by them, to maintain any heretical
opinion, as the adversary chargeth us, that is the thing
that I wUl (by God's grace) stand to defend against all the
papists in the world. And this end you have falsely and
fraudulently omitted in reporting my saying, whereupon de-
pendeth the chief, yea, the whole matter of my assertion.
You play manifestly with us the lewd part of Procrustes, the
thievish host, which would make his guests' stature equal
with his bed's, either by stretchmg them out if they were too
short, or by cutting off their legs if they were too long. So
[FULKE.J
98 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
if our sayings be too short for your purpose, you strain them
to be longer ; if they be too long, you cut off their shanlvs ;
yea, that which is worse, the very head, as you play with me
in this place. I myself, and so did many hundi'eds beside me,
hear that reverend father, M. Doctor Coverdale, of holy and
learned memory, in a sermon at Paul's cross, upon occasion of
some slanderous reports that then were raised against his
translation, declare his faithfid purpose in doing the same ;
which after it was finished, and presented to king Henry VIII.
of famous memory, and by him committed to divers bishops
of that time to peruse, of wliich (as I remember) Stephen
Gardiner was one ; after they had kept it long in their hands,
and the king was divers times sued mito for the publication
thereof, at the last being called for by the king liimself, they
redelivered the book ; and being demanded by the king what
was their judgment of the translation, they answered that there
were many faults therein. "Well," said the king, "but are
there any heresies maintained thereby ? " They answered, there
were no heresies, that they could find, maintained thereby.
"K there be no heresies," said the king, "then in God's name
let it go abroad among our people." According to this judg-
ment of the king and' the bishops, M. Coverdale defended his
translation, confessing that he did now liimself espy some
faults, which, if he might review it once over again, as he had
done twice before, he doubted not but to amend ; but for any
heresy, he was sure there was none maintained by his trans-
lation. After the same manner, I doubt not (by God's help)
so to defend aU our translations, for all your evident marks to
know wilful corruptions, that not one shall be fomid of pur-
pose to maintain any heretical opinion, and not many errors
committed through neghgence, ignorance, or human frailty.
Martin, 2. Martin. The first mark and most general is : If they translate else-
Evident where not amiss, and in places of controversv between them and us most
marks or ' '- *'
signs to know falsely; it is an evident argument that they do it not of negligence, or
ruptionsin ignorance, but of partiality to the matter in controversy. This is to be
seen through the whole bible, where the faults of their translations are
altogether, or specially, m those scriptures that concern the causes in
question between us. For other small faults, or rather oversights, we
will no further note unto them, than to the end that they may the more
easily pardon us the like, if they find them.
FuLKE, 2. Fulke. This murk is too general to know anytliing
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 99
thereby : when you do exemplify it in special, you shall
easily be answered ; in the meantime, it is sufficient to deny
generally, that wherewith you so generally charge us, that
we have in places of controversy translated anything falsely.
If one word be otherwise translated in any place of contro-
versy, than it is in other places out of controversy, there may
be rendered sufficient reason of that variety, without that it
must needs come of partiality to the matter in controversy,
but rather of love of the truth, which in all matters of ques-
tion between us is confirmed by plain text of scriptm'es, or
necessary collection out of the same ; so that if the translation
in those places were the same that yours is, of the New Tes-
tament, it should neither hinder our truth, nor fortify your
error. As for small faults and oversights, reason it is (as you .
say) they should be pardoned on both sides.
Martin. If, as in their opinions and heresies they forsake the an- Martin, 3.
cient fathers, so also in their translations they go from that text and
ancient reading of holy scriptures, Avhich all the fathers used and ex-
pounded; is it not plain that their translation foUoweth the vein and
humour of their heresy ? And again, if they that so abhor from the an-
cient expositions of the fathers, yet, if it seem to serve for them, stick not
to make the exposition of any one doctor the very text of holy scripture ;
what is this hut heretical wilfulness 1 See this, chap. i. numb. 43. chap. x.
numb. 1, 2. chap, xviii. numb. 10, 11. and chap. xix. numb. 1.
Fidke. We never go from that text and ancient reading, Fulke, 3.
which all the fathers used and expounded ; but we translate
that most usual text, which was first printed out of the most
ancient copies that could be found ; and if any be since found,
or if any of the ancient fathers did read otherwise than the
usual copies, in any word that is any way material, in anno-
tation, commentaries, readings, and sermons, we sjDare not to
declare it as occasion serveth : but that we " stick not to make
the exposition of any one doctor the very text of holy scripture,"
it is a very heinous slander, neither can it be proved in any of
the places of your book, wliich you quote for that purpose.
Martin. Again, if they that profess to translate the Hebrew and Martin, 4.
Greek, and that because it maketh more for them (as they say), and
therefore in all conferences and disputations appeal unto it as to the
fountain and touchstone, if they (I say) in translating places of con-
troversy flee from the Hebrew and the Greek ; it is a most certain argu-
7—2
100 A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH [cH.
ment of wilful corruption. This is done many ways, and is to be observed
also throughout the whole bible, and in all this book.
FuLKE, 4. FulJce. We never flee from the Hebrew and Greek in
any place, much less in places of controversy ; but we always
hold, as near as we can, that which the Greek and Hebrew
signifieth. But if in places of controversy we take witness
of the Greek or vulgar Latin, where the Hebrew or Greek
may be thought ambiguous; I trust no wise man will count
this a flight from the Hebrew and Greek, which we always
translate aright, whether it agree with the Seventy or vulgar
Latin, or no.
Martin, 5. Martin. If the Greek be idololatria and idololatra, and they trans-
elSw\o\a- late not idolatry and idolater, but, worshipping of images, and wor-
'^Is'^XX ' s^ipP^^ of images; and that so absurdly, that they make the apostle say,
-rpjjs. ' covetousness is worshipping of images ;' this none would do but fools or
^Pj'-.y- madmen, unless it were of purpose against sacred images. See chap. iii.
Bib. an. 1577. numb. 1, 2.
FuLKE, 5. Fulke. If the Greek words do signify as we translate,
(as hath been often proved,) who but a wrangling quarreller
would find fault therewith, except it were to maintain idolatry,
or worshipping of images, which before God and all wise men
of the world is all one? And where you say, none but fools
or madmen would translate, Ep, v. ^ Col. iii., " covetousness is
worshipping of images ;" I pray you, in whether order will you
place Isidorus Clarius, of a monk of Casinas made bishop Ful-
ginas, which in the tliird to the Colossians upon your vulgar
Latin text, (which according to the Greek calleth idololatria,
simulacrorum servitus, the service of images,) in his notes
upon the place writeth this : Prceter cetera peccata avaritia
peculiare hoc nomen assecuta est, ut dicatur esse {horrendum
nomen) cidtus simulacrorum. Nam pecunia quid aliud est
quam simulacrum quoddam, vel argenteum vel aureum,,
quod homines avari plus amant, et longe majore cultu atque
honore prosequuntur, quam ipsum Deum.^ "Above other sins,
P The translations of Tyndale 1534, Cranmer 1539, and Bishops'
Bible 1584, render Ephes. v. 5. os ea-nv elBcoXoXarpr^s, "which is a
worshipper of images." The Geneva versions 1657, 1560, have it
the same as the Authorised version of 1611, "which is an idolater."
The Vulgate has, "quod est idolorum servitus."]
[2 Critici. Sacri. vii. 284.3
1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 101
covetousness hath obtained this peculiar name, that it is called
(which is an horrible name) the worshipping of images ; for
what other thing is money but a certain image, either of silver
or gold, which covetous men do love more, and prosecute
with far greater worship and honour, than they do God him-
self?" Or, if you make no count of Isidorus Clarius, in what
degree will you account the deputies of the council of Trent ^,
whose severe censure this note hath escaped? of fools, or of
madmen, or of enemies to sacred images ? Yea, how will
you excuse your own vulgar Latin translation, which turneth
idololatria out of Greek into simulacroruni servitus, " the
service or worship of images " ? I am[not so unaquainted with
your shameless shifts, but I know right well that you will
say, this Latin word simulacrum signifieth a false image, *
or an idol that is worshipped as God ; for nothing else you
will acknowledge to be an idol. But who shall better tell us
what the Latin word simulacrum, doth signify, than the
father of eloquence in the Latin tongue, even Tully liimself,
who in liis oration pro Archia poeta useth simulacrum for
the same that statua and imago? Speaking of the cunning
image-makers of Greece, he saith, Statuce et imagines non
unimorum simulacra sunt, sed corporum : " standing images
and other images are not similitudes or images of the minds,
but of the bodies." And in his accusation of Verreshe nameth
effigies simulacrumque Mithridatis, " the shape and image of
Mithridates." In his second book De Inventione he sheweth
that Zeuxis, that famous painter, did paint the image of He-
lena : ut excellentem m,uliebrisjhrmce pidchritudinem muta in
sese imago contineret, Helenoe se pingere velle simulacrum
dixit. " That a dumb image might contain in it the excellent
beauty of a woman's form, he said he would paint the simih-
tude or image of Helena." Also in his famihar epistles,
Epist. Ixviii., Illi artifices corporis simulacra ignotis nota
faciehant : " those workmen did make the images of the
bodies known to them that knew them not." And so com-
monly he useth simulacrum, justitice, virtutis, civitatis,
for the image or similitude of justice, of virtue, of a city or
I commonwealth, &c. And so do other good Latin writers, as
weU as he, use the word simulacrum, not only for an image
P The deputies who took off the interdiction pronounced on tho
edition of 1642.]
102
A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH
[CH.
De vero Dei
cultu. lib. e.
cap. 43.
De orig.
error, lib. 2.
cap. 2.
that is religiously worshipped, but even generally for any
image, and in the same signification that they use the word
imago. But peradventure ecclesiastical writers use the word
simulacrum only for idols forbidden ; and I perhaps shall be
chidden of Martin for citing testimonies out of profane authors,
to know the use of ecclesiastical terms. Let us see then what
christian writers say to this matter, and how they use this
word simulacrum. You yourselves say we may not trans-
late that verse of Genesis, " God made man after his idol."
But Lactantius^ calleth men viventia Dei simulacra, "living
images of God," which we ought to garnish rather than simur-
lacra insensibiliaDeorum, " the senseless images of the Gods,"
wliich the heathen garnished : yea, he hath a whole chapter,
intituled, De simulacris et vero Dei simulacra et cultu,
" Of images and of the true image and worship of God"; in
wliich also he sheweth that simulacrum is called of simili-
tude : and therefore the heathenish idols, havmg no resem-
blance of God, cannot properly be called simulacra. St
Ambrose^, another writer of the church, upon 1 Cor. x., upon
that text, Non quia simulacrum est aliquid, &c., " not that
the image is anything" : (the Greek is idolimi :) Simulacruin
vere nihil est, quia imago videtur rei mortuce : " The image
or idol is indeed nothing, because it seemeth to be an image
of a dead thing." Also upon the 45th psalm : " God was
high in the patriarchs and prophets, which did not compare
him imaginihus terrenis et simidacris scrtipeis^, to images
or similitudes of the earth and stone." Tertulhan^ also, a
Latin writer, in his book De Spectacidis, speaking of cimning
workmanship of imagery, shewed in those plays, and the
authors of them, saith : Scimus enim nihil esse twmina mor-
tuorum, sicut nee ipsa simulacra eorum : " we know that the
names of those dead men are nothing, as also their images."
1^^ Nam si deorum cultores simulacra insensibilia excolunt, et quidquid
pretiosi habent, in ea conferunt, quibus nee uti possunt, nee gratias agere,
quod acceperint; quanto justius est et verius, viventia Dei simulacra
excolere, ut promereare viventem? Lactantii De vero Cultu, Lib. vi.
cap. 13. Opera, Vol. i. p. 472. edit. Dufresnoy, Lutet. Paris. 1748.]
P Simulacrum vere niliil est, quia imago videtur rei mortuse: sed
sub tegmine simulacrorlim diabolus colitur. Ambros. Op. Vol. ii. p. 145.]
P In Psal. xLv. Enarratio, prop, fin.]
P Tertullianus de Spectaculis, p. 15. edit. Rigalt. 1634.]
1.] TKANSLATIONS OP THE BIBLE. 103
Afterward to their names, nominihus, he joineth imaginihus,
to shew that simulacra and imagines are all one, which of
Christians at that time were greatly abhorred in detestation
of idolatry. St Augustme^ calleth the same simulacra, which
before he called imagines : Cum ex desiderio mortuonmi
constituerentur imagines, unde simidacrorum usus exortus
est : " when for desire of the dead images were made, whereof
the use of images came, through flattery, divine honour was
given unto them." And so they brought in idolatry, or the
worsliipping of images. The same Augustine'^, in his book
Octoginta Qumstion., in the seventy-eighth question, which is
intituled De simidacrorum j)ulchrittidine, " of the beauty of
images," ascribeth to God the cunning by which they are
made beautiful. And in his questions upon the book of •
Judges, hb. vii. cap. 41, inquiring how Gideon's ephod was
a cause of fornication to the people, when it was no idoF, he
[f Non igitur mirum est, si prsevaricatores angeli, quorum duo
maxima vitia sunt superbia atque fallacia, pei' liunc aerem volitantes,
quod uni vero Deo deberi noverant, hoc sibi a suis cultoribus exe-
gerunt, a quibus dii putari voluerunt, dante sibi locum vanitate cordis
humani: maxrme cum ex desiderio mortuorum constituerentur ima-
gines, unde simulacrorum usus exortus est. Augustini Conti-a Faustum.
Lib. XXII. cap. 17. Opera, Vol. viii. p. 577. edit. Paris. 1837.]
\y Ars ilia summa omnipotentis Dei, per quam ex nihilo facta sunt
omnia, quae etiam sapientia ejus dicitur, ipsa operatur etiam per arti-
fices, ut pulchra atque congruentia faciant ; quamvis non de nihilo, sed
de aliqua materia operentur, velut ligno, aut marmore, aut ebore, et
si quod aliud materise genus manibus artificis subditur. Sed ideo isti
non possunt de nihilo aliquid fabricare, quia per corpus operantur, cum
tamen cos numeros et lineamentorum convenientiam, quae per corpus
corpori imprimunt, in animo accipiant ab ilia summa sapientia, quae ip-
sos numeros et ipsam convenientiam longe artificiosius universo mundi
corpori imprcssit, quod de nihilo fabricatum est; in quo sunt etiam
corpora animalium, quae jam de aliquo, id est, de elementis mundi
fabricantur, sed longe potentius excellentiusque, quam cum artifices
homines easdem figuras corporum et formas in suis operibus imitantur.
Augustini Liber de diversis Quaestionibus, lxxviii. Vol. vi. p. 125.]
[J Hoc ergo illicitum cum fecisset Gedeon, fornicatus est post illud
orrmis Israel, id est, sequendo illud contra legem Dei: ubi non frustra
quaeritur, cum idolum non fuerit, id est, cujusquam Dei falsi et alieni
simulacrum, sed ephud, id est, unum de sacramentis tabernaculi quod
ad vestem sacerdotalem pertineret, quomodo fornicationem scriptura
dicat populi ista sectantis atque venerantis. Augustini Quaestiones in
Judices, xLi. Vol. in. p. 939.]
104 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
plainly distinguisheth simulacrum from idolum, as the ge-
neral from the special, Cum idolum non fuerit, id est cujus-
piam dei falsi et alieni simulacrum : " when it was no idol,
that is to say, an image of some false or strange God." Again
he saith : " Those things that were commanded to be made in
the tabernacle, were rather referred to the worship of God,
than that anything of them should be taken for God, or for
an image of God, pro Dei simulacro. So that simulacrum
with St Augustine signifieth as generally as image, and can-
not be restrained to signify an idol in the evil part, except
you add, that it is an image of a false or strange god. Ar-
nobius, an ecclesiastical writer of the Latin church, useth the
word simidacrum for an image generally ; calling man also
simulacrum Dei, (as Lactantius' doth the image of God,)
Cont. gent. lib. vi. Putatis autem nos occultare quod colimus,
si delubra et aras non habemus ? Quod enim simidacrum
Deo fingam, cum si recte existimes sit Dei homo ipse sim,u-
lacrum ? " Think you that we do hide that which we worship,
if we have no temples and altars? For what image shall
I feign to God? whereas, if you judge rightly, man himself is
the image of God." You see therefore that simulacrum sig-
nifieth not an idol worshipped for God, but even as much as
imago, by your own rule. Last of all, (for I will not trouble
the reader with more, although more might be brought,) Isi-
dorus Hispalensis, an ancient bishop of the Latin church,
Originum, lib. viii., speaking of the first inventors of images,
which after were abused to idolatry, saith : Fuerunt etiam
et quidam viri fortes aut urbium conditores, quibus mortuis
homines qui eos dilexerunt simulacra finxerunt, ut haberent
aliquod ex imaginum contemplatione solatium; sed paulatim
hunc errorem, &c. " There were also certain vahant men, or
builders of cities, who when they were dead, men which loved
them made their images or counterfeits, that they might have
some comfort in beholding the images ; but by Uttle and Httle,
the devils persuading this error, it is certain that so it crept
into their posterity, that those whom they honoured for the
only remembrance of their name, their successors esteemed
\} Itaqiie simulacrum Dei non Ulud est, quod digitis hominis ex
lapide, aut sere, aliave materia fabricatur; sed ipse homo, quoniam et
sentit, et movetur, et multas magnasque actiones habet. Firm. Lac-
tantii Divin. Institut. Lib. ii. cap. 2.]
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 105
and worsliipped as gods." Again he saith, Simulacra
autem a similitudine nunciipata, &c. " Images are called
simulacra of the similitude, because by the hand of the
artificers of stone or other matter they resemble the counte-
nance of them in whose honour they are feigned ; or they are
called a simulando, whereof it followeth they are false things^."
These testimonies needed not for them that be but half-
learned, which know right well that simulacrum is synono-
mon with imago ; but that our adversaries are so impudent,
that to serve their idolatrous affection they care not what
idols they invent, of words, of significations, of distinctions, so
they may seem to say somewhat in the ears of the unlearned,
which are not able to judge of such matters. But perhaps
they wiU say, their vulgar Latin interpreter useth the word'
simulacrum only for idols that are worsliipped with divine
honour. Neither is that true ; and although it were, seemg
it seldom useth simulacra, and most commonly idola, and
sometimes imagines, what reason is there why we may not
call those things images, which your interpreter calleth simu-
lacra ? And to prove that your interpreter useth simula-
crum for an image generally, as all other Latin writers do,
you may see 1 Sam. cap. xix.^, where speaking of the image
which Michol laid in the bed, to counterfeit the sickness of
David, first he calleth it statuam, and afterward the same
image he calleth simulacrum. And sure it is, that David
had no idols in his house. And lest you should cavil about
the Hebrew word teraphim*, which the Septuaginta translate
Kevordcpia, Aquila calleth fxop(p(OfjLaTa, St Jerome telleth you Quast. Met.
[f Sed paulatim hunc errorem, persuadentibus dsemonibus ita ut
posteris constet irrepsisse, ut quos illi pro sola nominis memoria ho-
noraverunt, successores deos existimarent atque colerent. Simulacra
autem a similitudine nuncupata, eo quod manu artificis ex lapide
aliave materia eorum vultus imitantur, in quorum honorem finguntur.
Ergo simulacra, vel pro eo quod sunt similia, vel pro eo quod si-
mulata atque conficta, unde et falsa sunt. Etymologiarum, Lib. viii.
cap. 5, fi, Vol. III. p. 876. edit. Arevalo.]
[^ The LXX. have 1 Sara. 13. kcu fka^ep »; MeX^oX ra Kevordcfiia:
the Vulgate has, "Tulit autem Michol statuam." At the 16th verse
the LXX. have, xai l8ov to. nevord^ia: the Vulgate, "inventum est
simulacrum."^
\_* Et furata est Rachel idola patris sui: (Gen. xxxi. 19.) ubi nunc
idola legimus, in Hebrseo Theraphim (D^21il) scriptum est, quae
106 A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH [cH.
they signify figuras or imagines, " figures or images," which
sometimes were abused to idolatry, as those which Rachel stole,
and those which are mentioned Jud. xvii. Aben Ezra, and
other of the rabbins, say they were astronomical images, to
serve for dials, or other purposes of astrology ; and such, it
is most like, was that which was placed in David's bed, wliich
your interpreter calleth statuam and simulacrum. Therefore,
whereas we have translated idololatria, Col. iii.\ " worsliip-
ping of images," we have done rightly ; and your Latm inter-
preter will warrant that translation, which translateth the
same word, simulacrorum servitus, the service of images.
It is you therefore, and not we, that are to be blamed for
translation of that word; for where you charge us to depart
from the Greek text, which we profess to translate, we do
not, except your vulgar translation be false. But you, pro-
fessing to follow the Latin, as the only true and authentical
text, do manifestly depart from it in your translation ; for the
Latin being simulacrorum servitus, you call it the service of
idols, appealing to the Greek word, wliich you have set in
the margin, eidcoXoXarpeia, and dare not translate according to
your own Latm ; for then you should have called covetousness
even as we do, the worshippmg or service of images. And
yet you charge us in your notes with a marvellous impudent
and foolish corruption. But I report me to all mdifferent
readers, whether this be not a marvellous impudent and fool-
ish reprehension, to reprove us for saying the same in Enghsh,
that your own interpreter saith in Latin ; for simulacro-
rum servitus is as well the service of images, as simulacro-
rum artifex is a maker of images, whom none but a fool or
a madman would call a maker of idols ; because, not the
craftsman that frameth the image, but he that setteth it up to
be worshipped as God, maketh an idol, accordmg to your own
Aquila iiopcfxifiara, id est, figuras, vel imagines interpretatur. Hoc au-
tem ideo, ut sciamus quid Judicum libro Tiieraphim sonet. (Jud.
xvii. 6.) Hieronymi Qunestionum Hebraic, in Genesim. Opera, Vol. ii.
p. 535. edit. Martianay.]
P Koi rrjv TrXeove^iav, tjtls icTTiv etStoXoXarpeta. Coloss. iii. 5. " Et
avaritiam, qusB est simulacrorum servitus." Vulg. " And covetousness,
which is worshipping of idols." Tyndale, Cranmer. "And covetousness,
wliich is idolatry." Geneva, Authorised. "And covetousness, which
is worshipping of images." Bishops' Bible. "And avarice, which is
the service of idols." Rheims.]
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 107
acceptation of an idol. But of this matter enough at this
time.
Martin. If the apostle say, a Pagan idolater, and a Christian idol- Martin, 6.
ater, by one and the same Greek word, in one and the same meaning ; ^^-^^oXd-
and they translate, a Pagan idolater, and a Christian worsliipper of xpjjs.
images, by two distinct words and diverse meanings ; it must needs be
done wUfully to the foresaid purpose. See chap. iii. numb. 8, 9.
Fulke. We translate not only pagan idolaters, but also Fulke, 6.
Jewish idolaters, nor Christians only worshippers of images,
but pagans also : wherefore this is a foolish observation.
And if we do any where explicate, who is an idolater, by '
translating him a worsliipper of images, both the word bear-
eth it, and it is not contrary to the sense of the scriptures,
in which we find the worshipping of images always forbidden,
but never commanded or allowed.
Martin. If they translate one and the same Greek word tradition, Martin, 7.
whensoever the scripture speaketh of evil traditions ; and never translate Trapdooai^.
it so, whensoever it speaketh of good and apostolical traditions ; their
intention is evident against the authority of traditions. See chap. ii.
numb. 1, 2, 3.
Fulke. This is answered sufficiently in confutation of Fulke, 7.
the preface, sect. 51. The English word " tradition" sounding
m the evil part, and taken by the papists for matter un-
written, yet as true and as necessary as that which is con-
tained in the holy scriptures, we have upon just cause
avoided in such places, as the Greek word signifieth good
and necessary doctrine, dehvered by the apostles, which is
all contained in the scriptures ; and yet have used such English
words as sufficiently express the Greek word used in the
original text. Do not you yom*selves translate tradere some-
times to betray, and sometimes to deliver ?
Martin. Yea, if they translate "tradition," taken in ill part, where it Martin, \s.
is not in the Greek ; and translate it not so, where it is in the Greek, tI Soy/na-
taken in good part ; it is more evidence of the foresaid wicked intention. coPiT 20"
See chap. ii. numb. 5, 6.
Q2 Tt &)s Cavres eV koV/lim BoyixariCecrde ; Col. ii. 20. "Quidadhuc
tamquam viventes in mundo decernitis?" Vulg. "Are ye led with tra-
ditions of them that sayl" Tyndale. "Are ye led with traditions?"
108 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
FuLKE, 8. Fulke. Our intention can be no worse than your vulgar
Latin interpreter's was, who, where the Greek hath eOrj,
translateth it traditions, Act. vi. And the right understanding
of the word ^oytxaTiiCeaQe, according to the Apostle's mean-
ing, will yield traditions, as well as 'kBri in the place before
mentioned.
Martin, 9. Martin. If they make this a good rule, to translate according to the
usual signification, and not the original derivation of words, as Beza and
Pag. 209. Master Whitakers do ; and if they translate contrary to this inle, what
is it but wilful corruption ? So they do in translating idolum an image,
presbyter an elder ; and the like. See chap. iv. and chap. vi. numb.
6, 7, 8, &c., numb. 13, &c.
Fulke 9. Fulke. Neither Beza, nor Master Whitaker, make it
a perpetual rule to translate according to the usual significa-
tion ; for sometimes a word is not taken in the usual signifi-
cation: as Foenerator\ used by your vulgar Latin interpreter,
Luke vii., usually signifieth an usurer ; yet do you translate
it a creditor. Likewise stabulum, used Luke x., usually
signifieth a stable, yet you translate it an inn. So navis,
which usually signifieth a ship, you call it a boat, Mark viii.;
and navicula, which usually signifieth a boat, you call a ship,
Luke V. And yet I think you meant no wilful corruption.
No more surely did they which translated idolura an image,
and presbyter an elder, which you cannot deny. But they
follow the original derivation of the words ; whereas some
of yours both go from the usual signification, and also from
the original derivation.
Cranmer, Bishops' Bible. "Are ye burdened with traditions?" Geneva.
"Are ye subject to ordinances?" Authorised. "Why do you yet de-
cree as living in the world?" Rheims. (See c. ii., n. 4.)]
P Luke vii. 41. ■^^o XP^^'P^'-^^'''^'- '?«■'"' bavfia-rfj tivi. Vulgate,
"Duo debitores erant cuidam fceneratori." Rhemish translation, "A
certain creditor had two debtors."
Luke X. 34. ^yayev avrov els ivavhoxflov. Vulgate, " duxit in sta-
bulum", rendered by the Rhemish translator, "brought him to an
inn."
Mark viii. 10. f}i^as ds to nXolov. Vulg. "ascendens navim."
Rhemish translation, "going up into the boat."
Luke V. 3. (8l8a<TK(v ■ eV rov nXoiov tovs o^Xovs. Vulgate, " do-
cebat de navicula turbas." Rhemish version, "he taught the multi-
tudes out of a ship."]
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 109
Martin. If presbyter, by ecclesiastial use, be appropriated to signify Martin,
a priest, no less than episcopus to signify a bishop, or diaconus a
deacon ; and if they translate these two latter accordingly, and the first
never in all the New Testament ; what can it be but wilful corruption in Whitak.
p. 199.
favour of this heresy, that there are no priests of the New Testament 1
See chap. vi. numb. 12.
Fulke. The word priest, by popish abuse, is commonly Fulke,10.
taken for a sacrificer, the same that sacerdos in Latin. But
the Holy Ghost never calleth the ministers of the word and
sacraments of the New Testament 'lepel^, or sacerdotes.
Therefore the translators, to make a difference between
the ministers of the Old Testament and them of the New,
calleth the one, according to the usual acception, priests,
and the other, according to the original derivation, elders.
Which distinction seeing the vulgar Latin text doth always
rightly observe, it is in favour of your heretical sacrificing
priesthood, that you corruptly translate sacerdos and pres-
byter always, as though they were all one, a priest, as though
the Holy Ghost had made that distinction in vain, or that
there were no difference between the priesthood of the New
Testament and the Old. The name of priest, according to
the original derivation from presbyter, we do not refuse :
but according to the common acception for a sacrificer, we
cannot take it, when it is spoken of the ministry of the New
Testament. And although many of the ancient fathers have
abusively confounded the terms of sacerdos and presbyter,
yet that is no warrant for us to translate the scripture, and
to confound that which we see manifestly the Spirit of God
hath distinguished. For this cause we have translated the
Greek word TrpeafivTepo^ an elder, even as your vulgar Latin
translator doth divers times, as Acts xv.^ and xx.^; 1 Pet. v.\
\J Acts XV. 22. Tore ebo^e rois anoaToXois Koi tols irpea^vrepocs.
The Vulgate translates, " tunc placuit apostoHs et senioribus." This
latter word is rendered " elders" by the translations of 1534, 1539, and
Geneva, 1557. " Auncients," by the Rhemish version."]
(^* Acts XX. 17. /ifTEKoXeaaro rovs Trpecr^uTepovs. Vulgate, " Vocavit
majores."]
[* 1 Pet. V. 1. Trpecy^vrepovs rovs ev vp.lv irapaKaXcb. Vulgate,
"Seniores ergo, qui in vobis sunt." Rhemish version, "The seniors
therefore that are among you."
See also Acts ii. 17. '<«'' °' npea-^vrtpoi, &c. Vulgate, "Seniores."
Acts iv. 5. id.]
110
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
and elsewhere calleth them seniores or majores natu,
which you commonly call the ancients, or seniors, be-
cause you dare not speak English, and say " the elders."
Neither is presbyter by ecclesiastical use so appropriated to
signify a priest, that you would always translate it so in the
Old Testament, where your vulgar translator useth it for a
name of office and government, and not for priests at any
time. Neither do we always translate the Greek word
episcopus and diaconus for a bishop and a deacon, but some-
times for an overseer, as Act. xx., and a minister generally
oftentimes.
The word haptisma, by ecclesiastical use, signilieth the
holy sacrament of baptism ; yet are you enforced, Mark vii.,
to translate haptismata " washings." Even so do we, to ob-
serve that distmction, wliich the apostles and evangelists
always do keep, when we call sacerdotes priests, for differ-
ence we call preshyteros elders, and not lest the name of
priests should enforce the popish sacrifice of the mass. For
tliis word presbyter will never comprehend a sacrificer, or
a sacrificing priesthood.
Martin,
11.
Martin. If foi' God's altar they translate temple, and for Bel's idolo-
latrical table they translate altar ; judge whether it be not of purpose
against our altars, and in favour of their communion-table. See chap.
xvii. numb. 15, 16.
FuLKE,
11.
Fidke. If there be any such mistaking of one word
for another, I think it was the fault of the printer rather
than of the translator ; for the name of altar is more than
a hundred times in the bible : and unto the story of Bel
we attribute so small credit, that we will take no testimony
from thence, to prove or disprove anytliing.
printed again
1562.
Mahtin, Martin. If at the beginning of their heresy, when sacred images
Bib in king "^^^'^ broken in pieces, altars digged down, the catholic church's autho-
Edw^^time,^^ rity defaced, the king made supreme head, then their translation was
made accordingly ; and if afterward, when these errors were weU estab-
lished in the realm, and had taken root in the people's hearts, aU was
altered and changed in their later translations, and now they could not
find that in the Greek, wjiich was in the former translation ; what was
it at the first, but wilful corruption to serve the time that then was ?
See chap. iii. 5. chap. xvii. numb. 15, chap. xv. numb. 22.
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. Ill
Fulke. For images, altars, the catholic church's autho- Fulke,
rity, the 'king's supremacy, nothing is altered in the latter ^'
translations, that was falsely translated in the former, except
perhaps the printer's fault be reformed. Neither can any
thing be proved to maintain the popish images, altars, church's
authority, or pope's supremacy, out of any translation of the
scriptures, or out of the original itself. Therefore our trans-
lations were not framed according to the time ; but if any
thing were not uttered so plainly or so aptly as it might,
why should not one translation help another ?
Martin, If at the first revolt, when none were noted for hei'etics Martin,
13
and schismatics but themselves, they did not once put the names of '
schism or heresy in the bible ^, but instead thereof division and sect, Bib. 1562.
insomuch that for an heretic they said, an author of sects ; what may '
we judge of it but as of wilful corruption ? See chap. iv. numb. 3.
Fulke. Yes, reasonable men may judge, that they did Fulke,
it to shew unto the ignorant people, what the names of
schismatic and heretic do signify, rather than to make them
beheve, that heresy and schism was not spoken against in
the scripture. That they translated heresy sect, they did
it by example of your vulgar Latin interpreter, who, in the
24th of the Acts'", translateth the Greek word alpearew^ sectce.
In which chapter likewise, as he also hath done, they have
translated the same word heresy.
Martin. If they translate so absurdly at the first, that themselves Martin,
are driven to change it for shame ; it must needs be at the first wil- '^'*'
ful corruption. For example, when it was in the first temple, and in
the later altar; in the first always congregation, in the later always
church ; in the first, " to the king as chief head," in the later, " to the
[} Titus iii. 10. AlperiKov avOpanrov fi€Ta fiiav kul devrepav vov-
dea-iav TrapaiTov. Wiclif, 1380, renders it, " Eschew thou a man here-
tic ;" and Tyndale, 1534, " A man that is given to heresy, after the first
and second admonition, avoid." Cranmer's version 1539, and 1 562, has,
" A man that is author of sects, after the first and second admonition,
avoid." The Geneva versions of 1557, 1560, 1577, 1580, have, " Re-
ject him that is an heretic, after once or twice admonition." The
Rhemish, Bishops' 1584, and Authorised 1611, "A man that is an
heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid."]
P Acts xxiv. 5. rrjs tuiu ^a^wpaicov alp^a-ems. Vulgate, " Sectae
Nazarenorum." Rhemish version, " Sect of the Nazarenes." " Sect of
the Nazarites," edit. 1534, 1531), 1557.]
112 A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH [cH.
king as having pre-eminence." So did Beza first translate carcase, and
afterward soul^. Which aUeration in all these places is so great, that it
could not be negligence at the first or ignorance, but a plain heretical
intention. See chap. xvii. numb. 15, chap. v. numb. 4, 5, chap. xv.
numb. 22, chap. vii. numb. 2.
FuLKE, Fulke. Nay, it may be an oversight, or escape of neg-
ligence, or the printer's fault, as it is manifest in that quarrel
you make of temple for altar : for in Thomas Matthew's
translation, the first that was printed in English with au-
thority, there is altar in both places, 1 Cor. ix, and x. For
the term congregation changed into church, it was not for
shame of the former, which was true, but because the other
term of church was now well understood, to shew that the
word of scripture agreeth with the word of om' creed ; or
perhaps to avoid your fond quarrel, not now first picked, to
the term congregation. Whereas the former was, " To the
king or chief head," the latter saying, " the king as having
pre-eminence," doth nothing derogate unto the former, and
the former is contained under the latter. For I hope you
will grant, that the king is chief head of his people ; or if
the word Jiead displease you (be'cause you are so good a
Frenchman), tell us what chief doth signify, but an head ?
Now tliis place of Peter speaketh not particularly of the
king's authority over the Church, or in church matters :
therefore if it had been translated " supreme head," we could
have gained no greater argument for the supremacy in ques-
tion, than we may by the word pre-eminence, or by the
word extolling, which you use^. That Beza altered the word
cadaver into animam, I have shewed he did it to avoid
P OvK fyKaraXei-^fis ttjv ^vx^v fiov els abov. " Non derelinques
animam meam," Edit. 1582. "Non derelinques cadaver meum," Edit.
1556. Nov. Test. Bezse. "Because thou wilt not leave my soul in
grave," New Test, translated out of Greek by Beza, Englished by
L. Tomson. C. Barker, 1583. fol.]
P Extolling a mistake apparently for excelling. The translations
alluded to here are of 1 Pet. ii. 13 : 'YTroTayijTf ovv ivaa-ri avSpooirlvrj
Kvlaei 8ia rov Kvpiov' eiVe jSacrtXcZ, as invepexovri. " Whether it be
unto the king as unto the chief head," Tyndale, 1534 ; Cranmer, 1539 ;
Geneva, 1557. " VVliether it be unto the king as unto the superior,"
Geneva, 1660. "Whether it be to the king, as excelling," Rheims, 1582.
"AVliether it be unto the king as having the pre-eminence," Bishops'
Bible, 1584. ""VVliether it be to the king as supreme." Authorised
version, 1611.]
I.J TRANSLATIONS OP THE BIBLE. 113
oifenco, and because the latter is more proper to the Greek,
although 'the Hebrew word, which David doth use, may
and doth signify a dead body or carcase.
Martin. If they will not stand to all their translations, but fly to Martin,
that namely, which now is read in their churches^ : and if that which
is now read in their churches, differ in the points aforesaid from that
that was read in their churches in king Edward's time ; and if from
both these they fly to the Geneva bible, and from that again to the
other aforesaid : what shall we judge of the one or the other, but that
all is voluntary, and as they list ? See chap. iii. numb. 10, 11, 12, chap.
X. numb. 12.
Fulke. If of three translations we prefer that which Fulke,
is the best, what sign of corruption is this ? If any faidt
have, either of ignorance or neghgence, escaped in one, which
is corrected in another, and we prefer that which is corrected
before that which is faulty, what corruption can be judged
in either ? Not every fault is a wilful corruption, and much
less an heretical corruption. The example that you quote
out of your 3rd chapter, concerning the translation of
idolum, is no flying from our translation to another, but
a confutmg of Howlet's cavil against our church service ;
because this word is therein read translated an image,
1 John v.*, whereas in that bible, which by authority is
to be read in the church service, the word in the text is
idols, and not images ; and yet will we justify the other to
be good and true, which readeth, " Babes, keep yourselves
P Archbishop Parker's translation, commonly called the Bishops'
Bible, was first printed in folio in the year 1568, and in 4to. in
1569. It was ordered, in the Convocation of 1571, (Wilkins, Cone.
Vol. IV. p. 263.) that copies should be provided by all dignitaries for
their private houses, and by all church officers for the use of their
cathedral and parish churches. (See Constitutions and Canons Eccle-
siastical, in Dr Cardwell's Synodalia, Vol. i. p. 123. Documentaiy
Annals, Vol. ii. p. 11.) The edition quoted in these notes is that
printed by Barker, fol. 1584.
The Injunctions of Edw. VI. 1547, do not specify what particular
translation shall be used : neither do Queen Elizabeth's in 1559.]
r* TeKvia, (PvXd^aTe eavroiis ano twv ilbmKoiv, 1 John v. 21. *' Filioli,
custodite vos a simulacris," Vulgate. "Babes, keep yourselves from
images," Tyndale, 1534; Cranmer, 1539. "Babes, keep yourselves
from idols," Geneva, 1557, 1560; Bishops' Bible, 1584; Rhemish, 1582;
Authorised Version, 1611.]
r 1 S
[fulke. J
114
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
Martin,
16.
FULKE,
16.
from images," as your vulgar Latin text is a simulacris,
wherein you fly from your own authentical text to the Greek,
which, except you think it make for your purpose, you are
not ashamed to count falsified and corrupted.
Martin. If they gladly use these words in ill part, where they are
not in the original text, procession, shrines, devotions, excommunicate,
images; and avoid these words which are in the original, hymns,
grace, mystery, sacrament, church, altar, priests, catholic traditions,
justifications ; is it not plain that they do it of purpose to disgrace or
suppress the said tilings and speeches used in the catholic church 1 See
chap. xxi. numb. 5, and seq. chap. xii. numb. 3.
Fulke. Who would be so mad, but blind mahce, to
tliink they would disgrace or suppress the things or names
of catholic church, whereof they acknowledge themselves
members ; of grace, by which they confess they are saved ;
of hymns, which they use to the praise of God ; of justi-
fications, when they profess they are of themselves unjust ;
of sacraments and mysteries, by which the benefits of Christ
are sealed up unto them ; of altar, when they believe that
Jesus Christ is our altar ; of priests, when they hold that
all good Christians are priests ; of devotions, when they
dispute that ignorance is not the mother of true devotion,
but knowledge ; of excommunication, which they practise daily ?
As for the names and things of procession, slirines, images,
traditions beside the holy Scriptures in rehgion, they have
just cause to abhor. Neither do they use the one sort of
terms, without probable ground out of the original text ;
nor avoid the other, but upon some good special cause, as
in the several places (when we are charged with them) shall
appear.
Martin,
17.
Fulke,
17.
Martin. If in a case that malceth for them they strain the very
original signification of the word, and in a case that maketh against
them they neglect it altogether; what is this but wilful and of pur-
pose? See chap. vii. numb. 36.
Fulke. I answer, we strain no words to signify other-
wise than the nature and use of them will afford us,
neither do we spare to express that which hath a shew against
us, if the property or usual signification of the word, with
the circumstance of the place, do so require it.
1.] TRANSLATIONS OP THE BIBLE. 115
Martin. If in words of ambiguous and diverse signification they Martin,
will have it signify here or there as it pleaseth them ; and that so ^^'
vehemently, that here it must needs so signify, and there it must not;
and both this and that to one end, and in favour of one and the
same opinion; what is this but wilful translation? So doth Beza urge Bezain
yvvdiKa to signify wife, and not to signify wife, both against virginity and ix. 5.'
and chastity of priests : and the English bible translateth accordingly. ' • ^"- ' •
See chap. xv. numb. 11, 12.
Fulke. To the general charge I answer generally, Fulke,
We do not as you slander us ; nor Beza, whom you shame- ^^'
fully behe, to urge the word yvvaiKa, 1 Cor. vh. 1^ not to
signify a wife, against virginity and chastity of priests ; for
clean contrariwise, he reproveth Erasmus restraining it to
a wife, which the apostle saith generally, "It is good for a.
man not to touch a woman ;" which doth not only contam a
commendation of virginity in them that be unmarried, but
also of continency in them that be married. And as for
the virginity or chastity of priests, he speaketh not one word
of it in that place, no more than the apostle doth.
Now, touching the other place that you quote, 1 Cor. ix. 5^,
[' Bonum fuerit viro mulierem non attingere, is the rendering of
Beza's version, upon which he has these remarks: Mulierem non at-
tingere, yvvaiKos nff airTeadai. Erasmus, uxorem non attingere, id est,
(ut ipse interpretatur) ab uxore ducenda abstinere. Ego vero existi-
mo Paulum verbo anrea-dai signiiicasse in genere viri cum muliere
congressum: quem tamen per se non damnat, quum eo velit homines
ut remedio uti, idque in matrimonio, si continere se non possint, minime
id facturus si malum esset conjugium. Nam praecipit quidem humana
prudentia, ut ex duobus malis quod minus malum est eligamus :
Christiana vero religio contra, ut quicquid malum est sine ulla ex-
ceptione vitemus. Falsa est igitur Hieronymi doctrina, qui adversus
Jovinianum disserens, verbum aiTTfo-Bai ita urget, quasi in ipso etiam
mulieris contactu sit periculum : quum constet virum non minus bona
conscientia uti posse ac debere uxore sua quam esca et potu, ut
recte defendit Augustinus. Nov. Test. 1556.]
P The words are (1 Cor. ix. 5.), /^v ovk. expfiev i^ova-lav abek^i)v
yvvaiKa ivepiayeiv, a5y koX oi Xoiiroi aTtocTTokoi. ; Translated in Tyndale's
version of 1534: "Either, have we not power to lead about a sister
to wife, as well as other apostles?" In Cranmer's, 1539: "Have we
not power to lead about a sister to wife, as well as other apostles?"
In the Geneva version, 1557: "Either, have we not power to lead
about a wife, being a sister, as well as other apostles ?" The Rhemish
8—2
116 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH,
Beza doth truly translate d^€\(j)iju yvvaiKa, "a sister to wife,"
because the word sister is first placed, which comprehendcth
a woman, and therefore the word yvvaiKa following must
needs expHcate, what woman he meaneth, namely, a wife.
For it were absurd to say, a sister a woman. Therefore
the vulgar Latin interpreter perverteth the words, and saith,
mulierem sororem. It is true, that many of the ancient fathers,
as too much addict to the singleness of the clergy, though
they did not altogether condemn marriage in them, as the
papists do, did expound the sister, whereof St Paul speaketh,
of certain rich matrons, which followed the apostles whither-
soever they went, and ministered to them of their substance ; as
we read that many did to our Saviour Christ, Matt, xxvii. 55.
Luke viii. 3. But that exposition cannot stand, nor agree
with this text for many causes. First, the placing of the
words, which I have before spoken of. Secondly, this word,
yvvoLKa, were needless, except it should signify a wife : for
the word sister signifieth both a woman and a faithful
woman; and otherwise it was not to be doubted, lest the
apostle would lead a heathen woman with him. Thirdly,
the apostle speaketh of one woman, and not many ; whereas
there were many that followed our Saviour Christ, whereas
one alone to follow the apostle might breed occasion of ill
suspicion and offence, which many could not so easily.
Fourthly, those that are mentioned in the gospel our Saviour
Christ did not lead about, but they did voluntarily follow
him : but the apostle here saith, that he had authority, as
the rest of the apostles, to lead about a woman, wliich ar-
gueth the right that an husband hath over his wife, or of
a master over his maid. Fifthly, it is not all one, if women
could travel out of Galilee to Jerusalem, which was nothing
near an hundred miles, that women could follow the apostles
into all parts of the world. Sixthly, if the cause why such
women are supposed to have followed the apostles, was to
minister to them of their substance, the leading them about
was not burdenous to the church, but helpful : but the apostle
testifieth, that he forbare to use this hberty, because he would
version, 1582, has it: "Have we not power to lead about a woman, a
sister, as also the rest of the apostles?" The Authorised Version,
1611: "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as
other apostles ?"]
I.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 117
not be burdenous to the church of Corinth, or to any of
them. Seventhly, seeing it is certain that Peter had a wife,
and the rest of the apostles are by antiquity reputed to have
been all married ; it is not credible that Peter, or any of
the rest, would leave the company of their own wives, and
lead strange women about with them. As for the objection
that you make in your note upon the text, To what end
should he talk of burdening the Corinthians with finding
liis wife, when he himself clearly saith that he was single ?
I answer. Although I think he was single, yet is it not so
clear as you make it ; for Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh
he had a wife, which he left at Phihppi by mutual consent.
But albeit he were single, it was lawful for Mm to have
married, and Barnabas also, as well as all the rest of the'
apostles. Again, to what end should he talk of burdening
the church with a woman, which was not his wife, when
such women, as you say, ministered to the apostles of their
goods ? Whereby it should follow, that none of the apostles
burdened the churches where they preached with their own
finding, which is clean contrary to the apostle's words and
meaning. Wherefore the translation of Beza, and of our
church, is most true and free from all corruption.
Martin. If the puritans and grosser Calvinists disagree about the Martin,
translations, one part preferring the Geneva English bible, the other the
bible read in their church ; and if the Lutherans condemn the Zuinglians'
and Calvinists' translations, and contrariwise ; and if all sectaries reprove
each another's translation ; what doth it argue, but that the translations
differ according to their diverse opinions? See their books written one
against another.
Fulke. Here again is nothing but a general charge of Fulke,
(Hsagreeing about translations, of puritans and Calvinists, Lu- ^^•
therans and Zuinghans, and of all sectaries reproving one ano-
ther's translation, with as general a demonstration, " See the
books written one against another ;" which would ask longer
time than is needful to answer such a vain cavil, when it
is always sufiicient to deny that wliich is affirmed without
certain proof.
IVl ARTIN
Martin. If the English Geneva bibles themselves dare not follow 20.
their master Beza, whom they profess to translate, because in their acu^I'u^
118
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
"• 23; iii. 21; opinion he goetli wide, and that in places of controversy; how wilful
2 Tiiess. ii. 15. WES he iQ SO translating ! See chap. xii. numb. 6, 8 ; chap. xiii. numb. 1.
FuLKE, Fulke. It is a very impudent slander. The Geneva
^^' bibles do not profess to translate out of Beza's Latin trans-
lation ^ but out of the Hebrew and Greek ; and if they agree
not always with Beza, what is that to the purpose, if they
agree with the truth of the original text? Beza oftentimes
followeth the purer phrase of the Latin tongue, wliich they
neither would nor might follow in the Enghsh. If in cHs-
senting from Beza, or Beza from them, they or he dissent
from the truth, it is of human frailty, and not of heretical
wilfulness. The places being examined shall discover your
vanity.
Martin,
21.
Fulke,
21.
Martin. If for the most part they reprehend the old vulgar trans-
lation, and appeal to the Greek ; and yet in places of controversy some-
time for their more advantage (as they think) they leave the Greek,
and follow our Latin translation; what is it else, but voluntary and
l^artial translation? See chap. ii. numb. 8, chap. vi. numb. 10, 21,
chap. vii. numb. 39, chap. x. numb. 6.
Fulke. We never leave the Greek to follow your vulgar
translation, as in the places by you quoted I will prove mani-
festly : but I have already proved that you leave the Latin
and appeal to the Greek, in translating simulacra, idols,
Col. iii. and 1 John v.
Martin,
22.
Beza, Lukel
Rom. ii.
Rev. six. 8.
Beza in
Kev. xjx. 8.
Fulke,
22.
Martin. If otherwise they avoid this word justifications^ altogether,
and yet translate it when they cannot choose, but with a commentaiy
that it signifieth good works that are testimonies of a lively faith ; doth
not this heretical commentary shew their heretical meaning, when they
avoid the word altogether ? See chap. viii. numb. 1, 2, 3.
Fulke. To avoid the word altogether, and yet sometime
to translate it, I see not how they can stand together ; for
\} The Geneva bible, edit. Rouland Hall, 1560, professes, on the
title page, to be "translated according to the Ebrue and Greke, and
conferred with the best translations in divers languages."]
[2 TTopevofievoi iv Traaais rais ivTokais Kai diKaicofiacri. Luke i. 6.
"Incedentes in omnibus mandatis et constitutionibus." Vulgate. "Ince-
dentes in omnibus mandatis et constitutionibus." Beza's version.
"Going in all the maundementis and justifiyngis." Wiclif. "Walked
in all the laws and oi'dinances." Tyndale, Cranmer. "Commandments
and ordinances." Geneva, Bishops' Bible, Authorised.]
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 119
he that cloth sometimes translate it, doth not altogether avoid
it. But you will say, they do altogether avoid it in all such
places where they do not translate it. That is altogether
false ; for the Geneva translation, Luke i.^, telleth you that
the Greek word signifieth justifications, and yieldeth a rea-
son why it doth in that place otherwise translate it : and
if to translate the Greek word oiKaicDtia otherwise than
justification, must needs shew an heretical meaning, then must
you needs say, that your vulgar Latin translator had an
heretical meaning ; for in the second place by you quoted,
namely, Rom. ii. 26, he translateth it justitias*, hkewise
Rom. i. 32^ justitiam, so hkewise Rom. v. 18^ And if it be
an heretical commentary, to say that good works are a
testimony of a lively faith, you will also condemn the apostles-
of heresy, Avhich teach it to be impossible to please God
without faith, Heb. xi., and that whatsoever is not of faith,
is sin, Rom. xiv., if there be any good works that are
not testimonies of a lively faith. But it is sufficient for you
to call what you will heresy, and heretical falsification, and
corruption ; for your disciples are bound to beheve you,
though you say the gospel be heresy, and the apostles them-
selves heretics. Gregory Martin calleth this an heretical
commentary ; what need you seek other proof?
Martin. Wlaen by adding to the text at tlieir pleasure they make Martin,
the apostle say, that by Adam's offence sin came on all men, but that ~"^'
by Christ's justice the benefit only abounded toward all men, not that No"Telt.'an.
justice came on all; whereas the apostle maketh the case alike, with- j^^g- ^''^•
out any such diverse additions, to wit, that we are truly made just by '^o'^- '^- ^^^
Christ, as by Adam we are made sinners : is not tliis most wilful cor-
ruption for their heresy of imputative and phantastical justice? See
chap. xi. numb. 1.
P The Geneva Bible 1560, has this note on Luke i. 6. " The Greek
word signifieth justifications, whereby is meant the outward observation
of the ceremonies commanded by God."]
[4 Ta BiKaiafiaTa tov vofiov (pvXdaaj). Rom. ii. 26. " Justitias legis
custodiat." Vulgate.]
P olrives TO StKa/u/ia tov Qeov iniyvovTes. Rom. i. 32. " Qui cum
justitiam Dei cognovissent." Vulg.]
I^** oxjTd) Koi hi ivos diKaicofiaros els navras avdpanrovs, els biKaiaxnv
Cioijs. Rom. v. 18. "Sic et per unius justitiam in omnes homines in
justificationem vitte." SiKoiot KaTa(TTadt'}crovTai ol ttoXXoi. Rom. v. 19.
"Many schuln be just." AViclif. "Shall many be made righteous."
Tyndale, Cranmerj Geneva, Authorised.]
120 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH»
FuLKE, Fulke. The verse by you quoted, Rom. v. 18', is a
manifest eclipsis or defective speech, to make any sense
whereof there must needs be added a nominative case and
a verb. Now by what other nominative case and verb may
the sense be suppHed, but by that which the apostle him-
self giveth before, ver. 15. ? unto which" all that followeth
must be referred for expHcation : where he saith, as you
yourselves translate it, "If by the offence of one many
died, much more the grace of God and the gift in the
grace of one man Jesus Christ hath abounded upon many."
Seeing therefore that defective speech must be supphed for
understanding in tliis probation, what is so apt as that which
the apostle himself hath expressed before in the proposition ?
Although you m your translation are not disposed to supply
it, because you had rather the text should be obscure and
wondered at, than that it should be plain and easy, or able
to be understood : albeit in other places you stick not to
add such words as be necessary for exphcation of the text,
as every translator must do, if he will have any sense to
bo understood in liis translation. For that defective speech,
which in some tongue is well understood, in some other
[} "Therefore as by the guilt of one into all men into condemna-
tion, 80 by the righteousness of one into all men into justifying of
life." Wiclif. "Likewise, then, as by the sin of one condemnation
came on all men, even so by the justifying of one cometh the right-
eousness that bringeth life upon all men." Tyndale. "Likewise, then,
as by the offence of one gUtship came on all men to condemnation;
even so, by the justifying of one, the benefit abounded upon all men
to the justification of life." Geneva. " Therefore, as by the off'ence of
one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so, by the
righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men imto justification
of life." Authorised version.
"Apa ovv cos 8i evos wapaTrTcofiaros els Travras avdpdnrovs, els
KaraKpip-a' ovtm koi 8i tvos diKauofMaTos, els Jravras avdpanovs, els
8iKai(0(nv C^fjs.
"As by the sin of one (sin came) on all men to condemnation;
even so by the righteousness of one (good came) upon aU men, even
to the righteousness of life." Rom. v. 18. edit. Jugge. 1568.
"Likewise, then, as by the offence of one (the fault came) on all
men to condemnation; so by the justifying of one (the benefit abound-
ed) toward all men to the justification of life.'' llom. v. 18. edit.
1579.]
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 121
is altogether void of sense, and must be explicated by ad-
dition of 'that wliich is necessarily or probably to be un-
derstood. So you translate, Matth. viii. Quid nobis ? " What
is between us?" Mark ii. Post dies^, "after some days."
Accumheret, " he sat at meat ;" and many such like. But
where you cliarge our translation to say, the benefit (only)
abounded toward all men, not that justice came on all ; you
do shamefully add to our translation: for the word 'only' is
of your own slanderous addition, and the rest is your mali-
cious collection. For we mean not to extenuate the benefit
of Christ's redemption, but by all means to set it forth to
the uttermost : as the word ' abounded' doth shew, if you
do not blemish the light of it by your blockish addition
of this word ' only'. And that we are truly made just by •
Christ, and yet by imputation, as we are truly made sinners
by Adam, and yet partly by imputation, as we are actually
by corruption, we do at all times and in all places most wil-
lingly confess : for the justice of Chi'ist which is imputed
unto us by faith, is no false or phantastical justice, as you
do no less blasphemously than phantastically affirm ; but a
true and effectual justice, by which we are so truly made
just, that we shall receive for it the crown of justice, wliich
is eternal life, as the apostle proveth at large, Rom. iv. and
v., whom none but an hell-hound will bark against, that
he defendeth " imputative and phantastical justice."
Martin. But in this case of justification, when the question is Martin,
whether only faith justify, and we say no, having the express words of J^^gsii 24.
St James ; they say, yea, having no express scripture for it : if in this ^^Jh' Jonf^a
case they will add ' only' to the very text, is it not most horrible and (?'• ''tp- edit.
" "^ •' ' Witteb. an.
devilish corruption? So did Luther, whom our Enghsh protestants issi.whitak.
honour as their father, and in this heresy of only faith are his own
children. See chap. xii.
Fulke. In the question of justification by faith only, Fulke,
Avhere St James saith no, we say no also ; neither can it ^^'
be proved that Ave add this word ' only' to the text in any
translation of ours. If Luther did in his translation add the
word 'only' to the text, it cannot be excused of wrong trans-
lation in word, although the sense might well bear it. But
[^ "Intravit Caphamaum post dies." Vulg. edit. Clem. "Post dies
octo." edit. Sixt.]
122 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
seeing Luther cloth himself confess it, he may be excused
of fraud, though not of lack of judgment. But why should
our translation be charged with Luther's corruption? Be-
cause " our English protestants honour liim as their father."
A very lewd slander : for we call no man father upon earth,
though you do call the pope your father ; albeit in another
sense Luther was a reverend father of the church for his
time. But as toucliing the doctrine of only faith justifying,
it hath more patrons of the fathers of the ancient primitive
church, than Martin can bear their books, though he would
break his back, who in the same plain words do affirm it as
Luther doth, that only faith doth justify. And the apostle
which saith^ " that a man is justified by faith without the
works of the law," speaketh more plainly for justification by
faith only (as we do teach it), than if he had said a man is
justified by faith only. Which text of Rom. iii., and many
other, are as express scripture to prove that we teach and
beheve, as that St James saith against justification by faith
only, where he speaketh of another faith, and of another
justification, than St Paul speaketh of, and we understand,
when we hold that a man is justified by faith only, or
without works of the law, which is all one.
Martin, Martin. If these that account themselves the great Grecians and
25. Hebricians of the world, will so translate for the advantage of their cause,
ranee of the as though they had no skill in the world, and as thouarh they knew
Greek and -ii-.r.. n i • ci
Hebrew neither the signification of words, nor propriety of phrases in the said
their"feise language ; is it not to be esteemed shameless corruption?
and wilful
translation r~< ii -^r ^ ' n ' i ii
thereof J'lUke. I OS 1 but II it camiot be proved that so thev
against their i i •
knowledge, translate, then is this an impudent slander, as all the rest
25. ' are ; and so it will prove when it cometh to be tried.
Martin, Martin. I will not speak of the German heretics, who to maintain this
26. heresy, that all our works, be they never so good, are sin, translated for
Brentius. Me- ^n i ' ./ o > ;>
lancth. See Tibi mil peccnvi, " to thee only have I sinned, thus, Tibi solum peccavi,
Dial. I. c. 12. that is, " I have nothing else but sinned : whatsoever I do, I sin :" Avhereas
Jof luoVw. neither the Greek nor the Hebrew will possibly admit that sense. Let
"^llh Tib these pass as Lutherans, yet Avilful corrupters, and acknowledged of our
wiiitai. pag. English protestants for their good brethren. But if Beza translate,
108.
P Rom. iii. 28.]
[^ Lindani Dubitantium Dialogus : de origine Sectanim hujus seculL
Colonic. 1571. 8vo. Foppen's Bib. Belg. p. 411.]
1
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 123
ert ovTuv rjiibiv aadevav , " when we were yet of no strength j" as the Rom. v. 6.
Geneva English Bible also doth interpret it, whereas every young
Grecian knoweth that aa-Bevrfs is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether
without strength : is not this of pui*pose to take away man's free will
altogether 1 See chap. x. numb. 13.
Fulke. I know not what German heretics those be which Fulke,
26
maintain that heresy, that all our works, be they never so
good, are sin, except they be the Libertines, with whom we
have nothing to do. For we never say that good works
are sin, for that were all one to say that good were evil.
But that all our good works are short of that perfection
which the law of God requireth, we do humbly confess
against ourselves : or else, whatsoever seemeth to be a good
work, and is done of men void of true faith, is sin. For.
these assertions we have the scripture to warrant us. And
if, to prove the latter, any man hath translated those words
of David in the 51st psalm, lecha, lebadecha, tibi solum, or, ^ttj^^ ^^
tantummodo tibi peccavi, &c. " To thee only, or altogether to ' * *
thee I have sinned," in respect of his natural corruption wliich
he doth express in the next verse, he hath not departed one
whit from the Hebrew words, nor from the sense which the
words may very well bear ; which he that denieth, rather
sheweth himself ignorant in the Hebrew tongue, than he
that so translateth. For what doth lebad signify, but solum -y^S
or tantum ? and therefore it may as well be translated solum
tibi, as soli tibi. And the apostle, Rom. iii., proving by
the latter end of that verse all men to be unjust, that
God only may be true, and every man a bar, as it is
written, " that thou mayest be justified in thy words," &c.
favoureth that interpretation of Bucer, or whosoever it is
beside. "But if Beza translate en ovtvov i^fxwv aaOevcou,
' when we were yet of no strength,' as the Geneva English
Bible doth also interpret it, whereas every young Grecian
knoweth that aaOei'ii]^ is weak, feeble, infirm, and not al-
together without strength : is not this of purpose to take
away man's free will altogether?" Chapter x, numb. 13.
Nay, it is to shew, as the apostle's purpose is, that we have no
strength to fulfil the law of God without the grace of Christ ;
[' "Quum adhuc nullis viribus essemus." Beza's version, edit. 1556.
"Quum adhuc infirmi essemus." Vulg. Rom. v. 6.]
124 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH" [cH.
even as Christ himself saith, "Without me you can do nothing,"
John XV. 5. But every young Grecian (say you) knoweth
that daOeuTjs is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether with-
out strength. And is there then any old Grecian that will
prove, that ao-^ecj/v alway signifieth him that is weak, but
not void of strength ? Doth aaOev^s always signify him
that hath some strength? Certain it is, that the apostle
speaketh here of those that were void of strength; for the
same he calleth in the same verse da€J3e7<i, ungodly, or void
of religion, for whom Christ died. How say you then? had
ungodly persons any strength to be saved, except Christ had
died for them? Therefore he that in tliis place translateth
daOevi]^, weak, feeble, infirm, must needs understand men so
weak, feeble, and infirm, as they have no strength. For
how might it else be truly said, " What hast thou that thou
hast not received ? " 1 Cor. iv. 7. Yes, say you, we have
some piece of free will at least, some strength to climb to
heaven, even without the grace of God, without the death
and redemption of Christ. If you say no, why cavil you
at Beza's translation and ours? The Greek word dadevrj^,
as great a Grecian as you would make yom'self, signifieth
weak or infirm, sometime that which yet hath some strength,
sometime that which hath no strength at all, as I will give
you a plain example out of St Paul, 1 Cor, xv. 43. The
dead body is sown ev daOeveia, in weakness : it riseth again
in power. Doth not weakness here signify privation of
all strength ? It is marvel but you will say, a dead
body is not altogether void of strength. Beza telleth you
out of St Paul, Rom. viii. 6, that the wisdom of the
flesh without Christ is death, it is enmity against God, it
is neither subject unto the law of God, neither can it be :
where is the strength of free will that you complain to be
taken away by our translation? Beza doth also tell you,
that St Paul calleth all the ceremonies of the law daOevrj, as
they are separated from the Spii'it of Christ, the weak and
beggarly elements. Gal. iv. Are they not void of strength
and riches, which are void of Christ's grace and Spirit?
But your purpose was only to quarrel, and seek a knot'
in a rush ; and therefore you regarded not what Beza hath
written to justify his translation. ,
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 125
Martin. If Calvin translate, Non ego, sed gratia Dd qucs mihi aderat, Martin,
may not mean Grecians control him, that he also translateth falsely j cor. xv.
against free will, because the preposition (tvv doth require some other 'i °"i"' ^M"'*
participle to be understood, that should signify a co-operation with free
will, to wit, avyKoinda-aa-a, " which laboured with me" ? See chap. x.
numb. 2.
Fulke. The Greek is, »/ X"/"^ "^^^ Geou »? avv e/noi, Fulke,
" the grace of God which is with me." A mean Grecian will
rather understand the verb substantive, than the participle,
as you do, and then must needs again understand the verb
cKOTTiaae, " hath laboured." For thus the sense must be, if
your participle be understood, 'I have laboured more than
they all, yet not I, but the grace of God wliich laboured
with me, hath laboured.' Who would commit such a vain
tautology? The sense is therefore plain, which the apostle's
words do yield in the judgment of better Grecians than
ever G. Martin was, or will be. ' I have not laboiu-ed
more than the rest of the apostles, of mine own strength
or will ; but the grace of God which is in me, or with me,
hath given me greater strength and abihty to travail in
the gospel, than to them.' But you are afraid lest it should
be thought, that the apostle had done nothing, like unto a
block, forced only : a blockish fear, and a forced collection.
For when the apostle first saith, he hath laboured, and after
denieth, and saith, I have not laboured ; what sensible man
will not gather, that in the former he laboured as a man
endued with hfe, sense, and reason, and in the latter that
he laboured not by his own strength or vii-tue, but by the ♦
grace of God, to which he attributeth all that he is in
such respect? "By the grace of God I am that I am," saith
he ; which manifestly excludeth natural free will, to that
which is good and appertaining to the glory of God. For
which cause he denieth that he laboured more than the
rest : " Not I, but the grace of God wliich was present with
me."
Martin. If when the Hebrew beareth indifferently, to say, Sin lieth Martin,
at the door^ ; and unto thee the desire thereof shall be subject, and thou q^^ j^ ^
shalt rule over it ; the Geneva English bible translate the first without „„. 1579.
[} Explained in the margin, '"'Sin shall still torment thy conscience."
Geneva bible, 1560.]
126
A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH
[
CH.
FuLKE,
28.
scruple, and the latter not, because of the Hebrew grammar ; is not this
also most wilful against free wUl ? See chap. x. numb. 9.
Fulke. I grant this to be done willingly against free
will, but yet no false nor corrupt translation. For in the
participle rohets, which signifieth lying, is a manifest enal-
lage or change of the gender, to declare that in chataoth,
which word being of the feminine gender signifieth sin, is
to be imderstood auon, or some such word as signifieth the
punishment of sin, which may agree with the participle in
the masculine gender, that the antithesis may be perfect.
*If thou doest well, shall there not be reward or remission?
if thou doest evil, the punishment of thy sin is at hand.'
But that the latter end of the verse can not be referred to
sin, but unto Cain, not only the grammar, but also the plain
words and sense of the place, doth convince. For that which
is said of the appetite, must have the same sense, which
the same words have before, of the appetite of Eve towards
her husband Adam, that in respect of the law of nature, and
her infirmity, she should desire to be under his government,
and that he should have dominion over her. So Abel the
younger brother should be affected toward his elder brother
Cain, to whom by the law of nature he was loving and
subject, and therefore no cause why Cain should envy him
as he did. Otherwise it were a strange meaning, that sin,
which is an insensible thing, should have an appetite or
desire toward Cain, who rather had an appetite to sin, than
sin to him. But you are so greedy of the latter part, that
you consider not the former. I know what the Jewish
rabbins, favourers of heathenish free will, absurdly do ima-
gine to salve the matter ; but that wliich I have said may
satisfy godly Christians.
Martin,
29.
Calv. in 5.
Hebr.
Bib. an. 1579.
FlTLKE,
29.
Mai-tin. If Calvin affirm that ano evKa^eias cannot signify propter
reverentiam, because anb is not so used, and Beza avoweth the same
more earnestly, and the English bible translateth accordingly, (which may
be confuted by infinite examples in the scripture itself, and is confuted
by Illyricus the Lutheran;) is it not a sign either of passing ignorance,
or of most wilful coiTuption, to maintain the blasphemy that hereupon
they conclude ? See chap. vii. numb. 42, 43.
Fulke. If Beza, Calvm, and the English translations be
deceived about the use of the preposition cltto, it proveth
I.] TRANSLATIONS OP THE BIBLE. 127
not that they are deceived in the translation of the word
evXafSeia^; which is the matter in question. They have
other reasons to defend it, than the use of the preposition,
although you slander Calvin in saying he affirmeth that dwo
is not used for propter, For he saith no more, but that the
preposition is ctTro not vrrep, or some such like, that may
design a cause, quce causam designet; that is, that certainly
may point out a cause, and cannot otherwise be taken.
Likewise Beza saith, Atqui non facile mihi persuaserim,
proferri posse ullum exemplmn in quo diro ita usurpetur:
'But I cannot easily persuade myself, that any example may
be brought forth, in which diro is so used,' that is, for propter,
or secundum, for wliich hid, Kara, or virep were more proper
and usual. Now, if Illyricus have helped you with a few .
examples where diro is so taken, what say Beza or Calvin
against it, but that it doth not usually and certainly sig-
nify so ? Their judgment upon the place remaineth still
grounded upon other arguments, although that reason of
the acception of diro be not so strong, as if diro had never
been so taken. But as for the blasphemy, you say, they con-
clude upon that place, [it] will redound upon your own neck;
for their exposition is honourable and glorious to God the
Father, and Christ his Son, and to the Holy Ghost, by
whom that epistle was indited, to the confusion of your
popish blasphemies, of the sacrifice propitiatory offered in
the mass.
Martin. If Beza in the self-same place contend, that fiXa^eia IVIartin,
30
doth not signify reverence or piety, but such a fear as hath horror and
astonishment of mind ; and in another place saith of the self-same word
clean contrary ; what is it but of purpose .to uphold the said blasphemy ?
See chap. vii. numb. 39, 40.
Fidke. Beza in the same place doth bring manv Fulke,
examples to prove, that the Greek word evXaf^eia doth
signify a great fear, and so is to be taken Heb. v. [7.] But
it is an impudent lie to say, he doth contend that it never
signifieth reverence or piety : and therefore that he saith
it signifieth piety in another place, is nothing contrary to
that he spake in this place ; for the word signifieth both, as
no man that will profess any knowledge in the Greek
tongue can deny.
128
A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH
[CH.
Martix,
31.
Aclsii. 23.
Martin. If he translate for God's foreknowledge^, God's providence;
for soul, carcase; for hell, grave^: to what end is this, but for certain
, „ heretical conclusions ? And if upon admonition he alter his translation
ibid:27.' ' for shame, and yet protesteth that he understandeth it as he did before;
did he not translate before wilfully according to his obstinate opinion?
See chap. vii.
Annotat. in
No. Test,
post. edit.
FULKE,
31.
Fulke. Beza doth indeed translate irpoyvwaei provi-
dentia ; but he expoundeth himself in his annotation : id est,
ceterna cognitione. For what heretical conclusion he should
so do, you do not express, neither can I imagine. To
your other quarrels, of soid and carcase, hell and grave, I
have said enough in answer to your preface. Sects. 46
and 47.
Martin,
32.
Annotat.in
Acts ii. 27.
Fulke,
32.
Martin. If to this pui*pose he avouch that slteol signifieth nothing
else in Hebrew but a grave, whereas all Hebricians know that it is the
most proper and usual word in the scriptures for hell, as the other word
keher is for a grave ; who would think he would so endanger his esti-
mation in the Hebrew tongue, but that an heretical purpose against
Christ's decending into hell blinded him ? See chap, vii.
Fulke. Nay, rather all learned Hebricians know, that
sheol is more proper for the grave, than for hell; and that
the Hebrews have no word proper for hell, as we take
hell, for the place of punishment of the ungodly, but either
they use figuratively slieol, or more certainly topheth, or
gehinnom. For sheol is in no place so necessarily to be
taken for hell, but that it may also be taken for tlie grave.
That keher signifieth the grave, it is no proof that sheol doth
not signify the same; and therefore you shew yourself to
be too young an Hebrician, to carp at Beza's estimation in
the knowledge of the tongue.
Martin,
33.
Martin. And if all the English bibles translate accordingly, to wit,
for hell grave, wheresoever the sciipture may mean any lower place
that is not the hell of the damned ; and where it must needs signify that
p Trpoyvaxrei rov Qeov e/cSoroi/. Acts ii. 23. " Praescientia Dei traditum."
Vulgate. " Providentia Dei deditum." Beza. All the English versions
have foreknowledge, except the Rhemish, which has prescience.']
P The versions of Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and of James, all
render "'s atov hell; the only ones having grave, being the Genevan
Versions of 1557 and 1560.
"Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in inferno." Vulg.
"Cadaver meum in sepulcro." Beza. Acts ii. 27.]
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 129
hell, there they never avoid so to translate it ; is it not an evident argu-
ment, that they know very well the proper signification, but of purpose
they will never use it to their disadvantage in the questions of limbus,
purgatory, Christ's descending into hell ? chap. vii.
Fulke. I have said before, there is no place in the Old Fulke,
Testament, where sheol must needs signify that hell, in *
which are the damned, but the place may be reasonably and
truly translated the grave : although, as in divers places
by death is meant eternal death, so by grave is meant
hell, or danmation. Concerning the questions of limbus,
purgatory, and the descending of Christ into hell, they are
nothing like : for the last is an article of our faith, which
we do constantly believe in the true understanding thereof;
but the other are fables and inventions of men, which have-
no ground, in the scripture, but only a vain surmise, builded
upon a wrong interpretation of the words of the scripture,
as in the pecuHar places shall be plainly declared.
Martin. If further yet in this kind of controversy, Beza would be Martin,
bold to affiiin (for so he saith), if the grammarians would give him leave,
that chebel with five points signifieth funem, no less than chehel with six Acts a! 24.
points ; is he not wonderfully set to maintain his opinion, that will /^H
change the nature of words, if he might, for his purpose ? ^^1
Fulke. Wonderfully, I promise you ; for he translateth wouw trans-
late solutis
the word for aU this, dolorihus, and sayeth. Nihil tamen funibus mor-
' e/ ' tis, not, solu-
ausus sum mutare ex conjectura: "Yet I durst change no- [j^^^^o^onbus
thing upon conjecture." Annotat. in Acts ii. 24^. You say, he Fulke,
would change the nature of words, Notliing so ; but if the ^4.
word might bear that signification, he thinketh it more
agreeable to the Hebrew phrase, which the evangelist doth
often follow. Is not this a great riiatter to make an evident
mark of corruption?
Martin. If passives must be turned into actives, and actives into Martin,
passives, participles disagree in case from theu* substantives, or rather be
plucked and separated from their true substantives, solecisms imagined,
where the construction is most agreeable, errors devised to creep out of
the margin, and such like ; who would so presume in the text of holy
scriptures, to have all gi'ammar, and words, and phrases, and construc-
tions at his commandment, but Beza and his like, for the advantage of
[^ " Quem Deus suscitavit solutis dolorihus mortis." Beza. " Quern
Deus suscitavit solutis dolorihus infemi." Acts ii. 24. Vulg.]
r 1 ^
[fulke. J
130
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
their cause ?
this chapter.
See chap. v. numb. 6, and the numbers next following in
FULKE,
36.
Martin,
36.
Acts iii. 21.
Pag. 43.
FuLKE,
36.
Fulke. But if all these be proved to be vain cavils
and frivolous quarrels, as in the chap. v. numb. 6. and in the
numbers following in this chapter it shall be plainly declared,
then I hope aU men of mean capacity and indifferent judg-
ment will confess, that ignorance hath deceived you, malice
hath bhnded you, hatred of the truth hath overthrown you,
the father of hes and slanders hath possessed you.
Martin. For example, St Peter saith, " Heaven must receive Christ."
He translateth, "Christ must be containesi in heaven," which Calvin
himself misliketh, the Geneva English bible is afraid to follow, Illyricus
the Lutheran reprehendeth : and yet M. Whitakers taketh the advantage
of this translation, to prove that Christ's natural body is so contained in
heaven, that it cannot be upon the altar. For he knew that this was his
master's purpose and intent in so translating. This it is, when the blind
follow the blind, yea, rather, when they see and will be blind : for certain
it is (and I appeal to their greatest Grecians) that howsoever it be taken
for good in their divinity, it wiU be esteemed most false in their Greek
schools, both of Oxford and Cambridge ; and howsoever they may pre-
sume to translate the holy scriptures after this sort, surely no man, no
not themselves, would so translate Demosthenes, for saving their credit
and estimation in the Greek tongue. See chap. xvii. numb. 7, 8, 9.
Fulke. Beza translateth quem oportet ccelo capi, Acts
iii. 21. You say, "Heaven must receive Christ:" Beza
saith, "Christ must be received of heaven." CaU you this
turning of actives into passives, and passives into actives ? Or
will you deny us the resolution of passives into actives, or
actives into passives? What difference is there in sense
between these propositions? Your purse containeth money,
and money is contained in your purse : the chm^ch must
receive aU Christians, or all Christians must be received of
the church. But Calvin, you say, misliketh this translation,
Qi Kai anocTTeiKj] tov TrpoKfXfi-pi-criJ.fvov vfuv 'irja-ovv Xpia-rov, ov Sfi
ovpavbv fiev Be^acrdai, a^pi ;(poi'a)J' aTTOKaracTTacrews Travraiv. ActS iu.
20, 21.
" Et miserit eum qui praedicatus est vobis, Jesum Christum. Quem
oportet quidem coelum recipere usque in tempora restitutionis omni-
um." Vulg.
"Et miserit eum qui ante praedicatus est vobis, Jesum Christum.
Quem oportet quidem coelo capi usque ad tempora restitutionis om-
nium." Beza.]
I
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 131
and the Geneva bible is afraid to follow it. Yet neither of
them both mishketh this sense, nor can ; for it is all one with
that which you translate, " whom heaven must receive." Cal-
vin only saith, the Greek is ambiguous, whether heaven
must receive Christ, or Christ must receive heaven. But
when you grant that heaven must receive Christ, you can
not deny for shame of the world, but Christ must be re-
ceived of heaven : wherefore you understand neither Calvin
nor Illyricus, who speak of the other sense, "that Christ
must receive heaven." And Master Whitaker, not of Beza's
translation, but of the text, and even of yom* own translation,
may prove, that Christ's natural body is contained in heaven.
And as for your appeal to the greatest Grecians, and the
Greek schools both of Oxford and Cambridge, [it] is vain and
frivolous ; for the least grammarians that be in any country
schools are able to determine this question, whether these
propositions be not aU one in sense and signification. Ego
anio te, and Tu amaris a me; "I love thee," or "thou art
loved of me." But it is strange divinity, that Christ should
be contained in heaven. Verily, how strange soever it seem-
eth to Gregory Martin, it was not unknown to Gregory
Nazianzen, as good a Grecian and as great a divine as
he is. For in Ms second sermon irepl v'lov, not far from the
beginning, he writeth thus of our Saviour Cln-ist : ^el yap
avTov paaiXeveiv o-'x^pi Tovoe, koI virep ovpavov ce'^O^vai
ctXP'- XP^^'^^ airoKaTa(XTaaew<s. "For he must reign until
then, and be received or contained of heaven until the
times of restitution." Here you see Nazianzen^ citing
this very place of Saint Peter, Acts iii., for the mean verb
of active signification, doubteth not freely to use the passive
verb in the same sense that Beza translateth the place,
against which you declaim so tragically. And if you think
it be such an heinous offence, to render passively in the
same sense that which is uttered actively in the text, so
that no man for his credit would so translate Demosthenes,
as Beza doth Saint Luke ; I pray you, what regard had
you of your credit and estimation ? when Matt. iv. you trans-
late, out of Latin, Qui dcemonia hahehant, "such as were
possest;" and Luke ii. Ut profiterentur, "to be enrolled."
P Greg. Naz. Oratio xxxvi. Opera, edit. Lutet. Parisiis 1609, p.
579.]
9 2
132
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
Belike you have a privilege to do what you list, when
other men mav not do that which is lawful.
Martin,
37.
Pag. 34, 35.
Against
D. Sand.
Rocke, pag.
308.
See Comm.
Bud. Figu-
rata con-
structio, or
'Attikov,
Martin. But yet there is worse stuff behind : to wit, the famous
place Luke xxii., where Beza translateth thus, Hoc poculum novum tes-
tamentum per meum sanguinem, qui pro vobis funditur^ : whereas in the
Greek, in all copies without exception, he confesseth that in true gram-
matical construction it must needs be said, quod pro vobis funditur ; and
therefore he saith it is either a plain soloRcophanes (and according to
that presumption he boldly translateth), or a corruption crept out of the
margin into the text. And as for the word solaecophanes, we understand
liim that he meaneth a plain solecism and fault in grammar, and so
doth M. Whitakers : but M. Fulke saith, that he meaneth no such thing,
but that it is an elegancy and figurative speech, used of most eloquent
authors ; and it is a world to see, and a Grecian must needs smile at his
devices, striving to make St Luke's speech here, as he construeth the
words, an elegancy in the Greek tongue. He sendeth us first to Budee's
commentaries, where there are examples of solaecophanes : and, indeed,
Budee taketh the word for that which may seem a solecism, and yet is
an elegancy, and all his examples are of most fine and figurative phrases,
but, alas ! how unlike to that in St Luke ! And here M. Fulke was very
foully deceived, thinking that Beza and Budee took the word in one
sense : and so taking his mark amiss, as it were a counter for gold, where
he found soloecophanes in Budee, there he thought all was like to St
Luke's sentence, and that which Beza meant to be a plain solecism, he
maketh it like to Budee's elegancies. Much like to those good searchers
in Oxford (as it is said, masters of arts,) who, having to seek for papistical
books in a lawyer's study, and seeing there books with red letters, cried
out. Mass books. Mass books: whereas it was the code or some other
book of the civil or canon law.
Fulke,
37.
Fulke. This must needs be a famous place for the
real presence of Christ's blood in the sacrament, that never
one of the ancient or late writers observed, until within these
few years. But let us see what fault Beza hath com-
mitted in translation. The last word in the verse, to e/c^v-
vo/jLevov, he hath so translated, as it must be referred to
the word tw aifxan, signifying blood, with which in case it
doth not agree. That is true ; but that he confesseth that
all Greek copies without exception have it as it is com-
monly read, it is false : only he saith, Omnes tamen ve-
[} Beza's words are, "Hoc poculum est novum illud testamentum
per sanguinem meum, qui pro vobis cffunditur." Edit. 1556 and
1582.]
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 133
tusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant. "All our old
Greek copies had it so written." He speaketh only of his
own, or such as he had, and not of all without exception; for
since he wrote this note, there came to his hands one other
ancient copy, both of Greek and Latin, in which this whole
verse of the second deUvery of the cup is clean left out.
For immediately after these words, tovto ecrri to (rwfxd
fxou, 7rX>)i/ iSov t] ^etjO doth follow ; and so in the Latin, Ve-
runtamen ecce manus qui tradet me, &c. Moreover, Beza
telleth you, that Basil in his Ethicks, 6p. kol. citing tliis whole
text of St Luke, readeth, t^ virep vfxwv eK')(vvoiJ.evM in the
dative case, agreeing with t^ aifxan, the word next before.
By wliich it is manifest, that in S. Basil's time the read-
ing was otherwise than now it is in most copies. Again,
where you say, he confesseth that in true grammatical con-
struction it must needs be said, Qiiod pro vohis funditur,
his words are not so ; but that those words, if we look to
the construction, cannot be referred to the blood, but to
the cup, which in effect is as much as you say ; ' His judg-
ment indeed is of these words, as they are now read, that
either it is a manifest soloecophanes, or else an addition
out of the margin into the text; and as for the word
soloecophanes, you understand him that he meaneth a plain
solecism and fault in grammar, and so doth M. Whitakers.'
How you understand him, it is not material, but how he
is to be understood indeed. M. Wliitakers, whom you call
to witness, doth not so understand him, but sheweth that if
he had called it a plam solecism, he had not charged
St Luke with a worse fault than Jerome chargeth St Paul.
But what reason is there that you or any man should under-
stand Beza, by soloecophanes, to mean a plain solecism?
Tliink you he is so ignorant, that he knoweth not the dif-
ference of the one from the other? or so neghgent of liis
terms, that he would confoimd those whom he knoweth so
much to differ ? " But Master Fulke (say you) saith that
he meaneth no such thing, but that it is an elegancy and
figurative speech, used of most eloquent authors : and it is a
world to see, and a Grecian must needs smile at his devices,
striving to make St Luke's speech here, as he construeth
the words, an elegancy in the Greek tongue." Thus you
write ; but if I give not all Grecians and Latinists just oc-
184 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
casion, before I have done with you, to laugh at your proud
ignorance, and to spit at your malicious falsehood, let me
never have credit, I say not of a Grecian or learned man,
which I desire not, but not so much as of a reasonable crea-
ture. Ah, sir! and doth M. Fulke say, that this speech of
St Luke is an elegancy in the Greek tongue ? I pray you,
where saith he so ? You answer me quickly, " Against
D. Saunder's Rock, p. 308^." I tremble to hear what words
you have there to charge me withal. Indeed in that page I
begin to speak of that matter against Saunder, who chargeth
Beza as you do, and moreover affirmeth that Beza should teach
that St Luke wrote false Greek, because he saith, that here is
a manifest soloecophanes. But that neither you shall quar-
rel, that I choose some piece of my saying for my pur-
pose, nor any man doubt how honestly you charge me, I will
here repeat whatsoever I have written touching that matter
in the place by you quoted :
" But the protestants do not only make themselves judges
of the whole books, but also over the very letter (saith he)
of Christ's gospel, finding fault with the construction of the
evangehsts, and bring the text itself in doubt. Example
hereof he bringeth Beza in his annotations upon Luke xxii.,
of the words, ' This cup is the new testament in my blood
which is shed for you.' In wliich text, because the word
blood in the Greek is the dative case, the other word that
followeth is the nominative case, Beza supposeth that St Luke
useth a figure called soloecophanes, which is appearance of
incongruity ; or else that the last word, ' wliich is shed for
you,' might by error of writers, being first set in the margin
out of Matthew and Mark, be removed into the text. Here-
upon M. Saunder, out of all order and measure, raileth
upon Beza and all protestants. But I pray you, good sir,
shall the only opinion of Beza, and that but a doubtful
opinion, indict all the protestants in the world of such liigh
treason against the word of God? For what gaineth Beza
by this interpretation? Forsooth, the Greek text is con-
trary to his sacramentary heresy. For thus he should trans-
P In Fulke's work, entitled "A retentive to stay good Christians
in true faith and religiop, against the motives of Richard Bristow.
Also, the Discoverie of the daungerous Rocke of the Popish Church,
Commended by Nicholas Saunder, D. of Divinitie. London, 1580."]
I.] TRANSLATIONS OP THE BIBLE. 135
late it : " This cup is the new testament in my blood, which
cup is shed for you." Not the cup of gold or silver (saith
he), but the hquor in that cup, which is not wine, because
wine was not shed for us, but the blood of Christ. Why,
then the sense is this: This blood in the cup which is
shed for you, is the new testament in my blood. What
sense in the world can these words have? By which it is
manifest, that the words ' which is shed for you', cannot
be referred to the cup, but to his blood. For the cup was
the new testament in his blood, which was shed for us ;
which sense no man can deny, but he that will deny the
manifest word of God. Neither doth the vulgar Latin trans-
lation give any other sense, although M. Saunder is not
ashamed to say it doth. The vulgar Latin text is this :
Hie est calix novum testamentiim in sanguine meo, qui pro
vohis fundetur. What grammarian, in construing, would re-
fer qui to calix, and not rather to sanguine ? Again, Erasmus
translateth it even as Beza : Hoc poculum novum testa-
mentum per sanguinem meum, qui pro vohis effunditur.
Now, touching the conjecture of Beza, that those words by
error of the scrivener might be removed from the margin
into the text, [it] is a thing that sometime hath happened, as
most learned men agree, in Matthew xxvii., where the name
of Jeremy is placed in the text for that which is in Zachary,
and yet neither of the^ prophets was named by the evangehst,
as in most ancient records it is testified. The lilce hath
been in the first of Mark, where the name of Esay is set in
some Greek copies, and followed in your vulgar translation,
for that wliich is cited out of Malachi ; which name was not
set down by the evangehst, but added by some imskilful
writer, and is reproved by other Greek copies. But this
place, you say, is not otherwise found in any old copy, as
Beza confesseth : then remaineth the second opinion, that St
Luke in this place useth solmcophanes, which is an appear-
ance of incongruity, and yet no incongruity. Wherein I
cannot marvel more at your mahce, M. Saunder, than at your
ignorance, which put no diiFerence between soloscismus and
soloecophanes ; but even as spitefully as unlearnedly you
affirm that Beza should teach that St Luke wrote false
Greek, whereas soloecophanes is a figure used of the most
eloquent writers that ever took pen in hand, even Cicero,
136 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
Demosthenes, Greek and Latin, profane and divine, and
even of St Luke himself in other places, whereof for ex-
amples I refer you to Bud^eus upon the word solcecophanes.
The appearance of incongruity is, that it seemeth, that to
eK-)(^uv6fxevov, which is the nominative case, should agree with
Tw a'luaTi, which is the dative case ; whereas indeed to is
used as a relative for o, as it is often, and the verb kaTi,
which wanteth, is understood, as it is commonly in the Greek
tongue ; and so the translation must be. Hoc poculum no-
vwn testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effun-
ditur, or effusus est. So that this is notliing else but an im-
pudent and unskilful quarrelling against Beza, whereas you
papists defend against the manifest institution of the cup,
and the practice of the primitive church, the communion in
one kind of bread only. Cone. Const. Sess. xiii. 21."
Where find you that I afiirm St Luke's speech here to
be an elegancy in the Greek tongue? yea, or solcecophanes
to be nothing else but an elegancy and figurative speech?
A figure indeed I say that it is ; but are all figures ele-
gancies, or all figurative speeches elegancies of speech ?
Some figiu-es, I trow, serve to excuse simihtudes of faults in
speech. But I say solcecophanes is used of the most eloquent
writers. Very well ; doth it thereof follow that it is always
an elegancy ? Have not the most elegant authors used hyper-
batons, perissologies, and other figures that are counted faults
of speech, and not elegancies and fine speeches ? But " all the
examples of Budee, you say, to whose commentaries I send
you, are of most fine and figurative phrases." If they be
such, they do the better prove that for which I called him
to warrantize, namely, that solcecophanes is not a solecism,
or false Greek, wherewith Saunder accuseth Beza to charge
St Luke. But where you utter your foohsh pity, in saying,
Alas, how unhke they are to that in St Luke ! I think
the case is not so clear as you make it ; for I suppose those
examples that he bringeth of the figure of the whole con-
struction changed after a long hyperhaton, or parenthesis,
may well be taken for figiu-ative speeches, but not for ele-
gancies and fine figurative phrases : as again, those popular
sayings which, being taken out of the common people's speech,
Budseus saith, the most eloquent orators have translated into
their finest writings. Peradventure, as musicians use some-
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 137
time a discord to set forth the harmony of concord, so they
by hardly avoiding of a solecism would shew the grace of
congriiity and elegancy. But of this whole matter let the
judgment be with them that are learned and eloquent in
both the tono-ues. It is sufficient for me that he which useth
soloecophanes in Greek committeth not a solecism, or speaketh
false Greek, as Saunder termeth it. But where you say,
that " Master FuLke was foully deceived and took his marks
amiss, as it were a coimter for gold, to tliink that Beza
and Budee took the word in one sense," you say your plea-
sure, but you shall well know, that Master Fulke is not so
young a babe, to take a counter for gold, as you are a bold '
bayard, to pronounce of aU men's meanings what you list.
For how are you able to prove, that Beza by soloecophanes
meaneth a plain solecism ? Think you that Beza is so simple
a child also, to term copper by the name of gold? If ha
had meant a solecism, could he not have said so ? But
you must play Procrustes' part ; for neither my saying nor
Beza's meaning were large enough for you, to frame your
slanderous cavil against the truth, and therefore with a loud
lie you must lengthen my saying, and with proud and false
presumption you must stretch out his meaning. These be
your arts, tliis is your eloquence, these are the sinews of
your accusations. Wliat " those good searchers in Oxford "
were, which, being masters of arts, could not discern between
mass books, and law books, for my part I never heard ; but
I think it to be a matter of as good credit as that you report
of me and Beza.
Martin. This was lack of judgment in M. Fulke at the least, and RlAnriN,
no great sign of skill in Greek phrases ; and he must no more call D.
Saunders unlearned for not imderstanding Beza's meaning, but himself,
who indeed understood him not. For if Beza meant that it was an
elegancy used of the finest authors, and such as Budee doth exemplify of,
why doth he say, " that he seeth not why Luke should use soloecophanes,"
but thinketh rather, it is a corruption crept into the margin ? Tell us,
M. Fulke, we beseech you, whether is the better and honester defence,
to say, that it is an elegancy and fine phrase in St Luke, or to say, that
it is a fault in the text, it came out of the margin, the gospel is here
corrupted ? Think you Beza such a fool, that he Avould rather stand
upon this latter, if he might have used the former, and had so meant by
solcecophanes ? Yea, what needed any defence at all, if it had been an
usual and known elegancy, as you would prove it ?
138 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
FuLKE, Fulke. I had rather it should be counted want of
judgment in me, so it were by a man of judgment, than to
be taken so often with falsification and lack of truth. For
my skill in Greek phrases, although I never professed any,
yet I see nothing brought by you to change my opinion of
Saunder's unlearned slander, in railing against Beza, for say-
ing that St Luke should write false Greek. And if solmco-
phanes do differ as much from solcecismus, as gold doth from
copper, as you seem to say, when you write that I take a
counter for gold, I might tliink myself very unlearned in-
deed, if I did understand Beza speakmg of soloecophanes,
as though he spake of solcecismus. But you demand why
Beza saith, that he seeth not why St Luke should use
soloecophanes, if he meant that it was an elegancy used of
the finest authors. Still you thrust in your he in every
corner : who saith he meant it was an elegancy ? Beza saith,
he seeth no cause why St Luke should use soloecophanes,
that is, depart from the usual and ordinary construction ;
and therefore passeth to another conjecture. But you speak
me fair to tell you, " whether is the better and honester
defence, to say that it is an elegancy and fine phrase, or
to say it is a fault in the text, it came out of the margin,
the gospel is here corrupted." First, I answer you, that Beza
affirmeth neither, but rather translateth as BasU did read.
Secondly, I say, there is no dishonesty in either of both
conjectures ; for this soloecophanes, though it be no elegancy,
yet may be defended from solecism, or false Greek. And
certain it is that some words have crept out of the margin
into the text, as the name of Jeremy in all copies that are
extant. Matt, xxvii., and of Esay in many, Mark i. And
yet we say not the gospel is corrupted ; which foul phrase it
seemeth you have great pleasure in, notwithstanding you
yom\self out of Lindanus charge all the Greek copies of
the Epistle to the Corinthians to be corrupted by Marcion,
the mischievous mouse of Pontus. You ask further, whether
I " thinli Beza such a fool to stand rather upon the latter,
if he might have used the former, and had so meant by
soloecophanes ? " Nay, rather, think you Beza such a fool,
that he would mean a plain solecism, and call it only an
appearance of solecism? What he rather stood upon, his
translation doth best shew, wliich is both with St Basil's
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 139
reading, and with the appearance of incongruity, which is
none in deed. " Yea, what needed any defence at all," say
you, "if it had been an usual and known elegancy?" So
well you love a He when you have made it, that you can
never leave it until you have worn it all to nought. Now
you have it, not only an elegancy, but an usual and known
elegancy. Verily, I never said it was an elegancy, as my
words are plain to be read of every man, and much less that
it was an usual and known elegancy. Only I say it is usual
and common in the Greek tongue, that the prepositive article
is used for the relative ; and so much in the next section you
yourself do grant me : and as for defence you talk of, I "
see none needful, except it be for that tliis phrase here
used of St Luke is lawful, though it be not so common
as the ordinary construction.
Martin. For you say further, that to is taken for o, and eVrt is Martuj,
understood, and that this is a common thing in the best Greek authors ; 39.
but you must add, that the said relative must always be referred to the
antecedent of the same case, as this speech, ro noTTjpiov to eKxwofievov
may be resolved thus, to Trorqpiop 6 iKxvv6fiev6v ia-n, or rather o €k-
Xyverai : but that ev rw aipLari [xov, to eK^yvoyievov, may be resolved, o i<-
Xvvofievov €(TTi, you shall never be able to bring one example ; and you
wilfully abuse vrhatsoever knowledge you have of the Greek tongue to
deceive the ignorant, or else you have no skill at all, that speak so
barbarously and rustically of Greek elegancies. For if you have skill,
you know in your conscience, that ev t« e'fia olfiaTi. to vnep vp.a)v eKxv-
vofievov is as gi-eat a solecism in Greek, and no more elegancy, than
to say in Latin, In meo sanguine fusus pro vobis, which in the school
deserveth whipping. And yet you ask very vehemently concerning
these words. Hie calix novum testamentum in meo sanguine qui pro vobis
fundetur, what mean grammarian would refer qui to calix, and not to
sanguis ? I answer that a mere Latinist, for ignorance of the Greek
tongue, would refer it rather as you say : but he that knoweth the
Greek, as you seem to do, though he be a very young gi-ammarian, will
easily see it cannot be so referred : as in the like, Acts xiv., Sacerdos quoque s lepevs
Jovis qui erat ante civitatem eorum. Here qui is ambiguous, but in the '^°'i ^"'^
Greek we see that qui must be referred to Jovis, and cannot be referred
to Sacerdos.
Fulke. First, I take that you grant me, that it is a Fulke,'
common thing in the Greek tongue, that the article pre- ^"
positive is taken for the subjunctive, and the verb substan-
tive may be understood where it is not expressed ; which if
140 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
you would not have granted, might have been extorted from
you by confession of all Grecians and Greek writers. Se-
condly, where you teach me a general rule, to add to the
former concession, that the said relative must always be re-
ferred to the antecedent of the same case, as in the example
you bring, to TroTtjpiov to eK-)^vv6fxevov, you shall pardon
me to learn of you. I take you for no such Aristarchus,
that you have power to make new rules in the Greek gram-
mar, and such as shall control not only Homer, but all
good authors that ever did write in that language, of sole-
cism and incongruity. For if the relative must always be
referred to the antecedent of the same case, to agree with
it in case, or else it is false Greek, I will abide by it,
there is no Greek author whose works are extant, but he
hath committed solecism. The examples that hereof might
be brought out of every several writer, if they were heaped
together, would make a book as big as Ilias. But in this
so clear a case to cite any examples, I see not to what
purpose it should be, unless it were to make httle children,
that learn tvtttw in the grammar schools, to be witnesses
of your intolerable arrogancy and incredible ignorance.
One example I will bring you out of St Mark, not luilike
this of St Luke, but that the verb eaTi is expressed : /cat
(pepovcxiv avTov eiri yoXyoOd tottov, o ecxTi ixeOepixrjvevo-
nevov KpavLov tottos, " and they bring him to the place Gol-
gotha, which is, being interpreted. The place of sculls." This
example is more than sufficient for so plain a matter. For
although it be an elegancy for the relative to agree in case
with the antecedent sometimes, yet to make a perpetual rule
thereof it proceedeth of too much rashness, want of know-
ledge and consideration. But I " shall never be able to bring
one example " like to this of St Luke, where, the relative not
agreeing in case with the antecedent, the participle may be
resolved by the verb substantive that is not expressed ; and
I " wilfully abuse whatsoever knowledge I have of the Greek
tongue, to deceive the ignorant, or else I have no skill at
all, to speak so barbarously and rustically of Greek ele-
gancies, and I know in my conscience, it is as great a
solecism in Greek, and no more elegancy, than to say in
Latin, In meo sanguine fusus pro vohis, which in the school
deserveth whipping :" and I know not what beside. But
I.] TRANSLATIONS OP THE BIBLE. 141
touching the similitude of the solecisms, if you had made
your example ahke, that is, put in the relative in the Latin,
as it is in the Greek, In meo sanguine qui fiisus pro vohis,
there is no more solecism in the one than in the other.
But all this wliile I bring no example, and you urge an
example, yea, so extremely, that you say confidently, I shall
never be able to bring one : but what if I bring two or
three ? who then abuseth his knowledge in the Greek ?
who hath no skill at all ? who deserveth whipping ?
Have you so read all authors, and bear them and all their
phrases so well m mind, that you dare before all the world
avouch, that I shall never be able to bring one example?
But to let all the world see your vanity, I will begin with
Theognis, who in the 863rd of his Elegiac Sentences writeth
thus :
noXXoi? a.xp^(Troi<Ti 6ebs StSoZ avhpaa-iv ok^ov
''EaGXov, OS oijff avrd) jSeXrepos ov8ei> iwv,
Ovre (f)ikots. '
See you here the relative os, bemg the nominative case, not
agreeing with his antecedent, ok^ov, of the accusative case,
but coming before the verb ecrri, that is included in the
participle ewi/? Wliat can you here say? wiU you cavil at
the subjunctive article ? Then read a few verses after, and
see whether tliis poet useth not as indifferently the preposi-
tive article as the subjunctive for the relative.
nil' oivov Tov ffJirjs Kopv(^rjs cmb Tavyeroio
' AjJLTrekoi TjveyKav, ras eCpvTevtr 6 yepav.
And within two verses,
Tov nivcov cmb p.ev xakenas (TKedacrets pLfXeBcovas,
speaking of the same wine. .
Also, Theocritus, in 24th Idyll :
OvXopevois 6(f)i€(rcn, ra Koi 6eo\ i-}(6a'ipovTi.
And in the 23rd Idyll:
Kal ttotI tov 6eov Tjvde rov {impure.
From Theocritus let us pass to Hesiodus, out of whom
it were over tedious to cite how often he useth the article
prepositive for the relative, and not agreeing in case with
the antecedent : but an example or two shall serve, where
the verb substantive is understood, and not expressed, nor
142 A DEl'ENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
any other verb to govern the relative, yet not agreeing in
case with the antecedent :
Kpi^vqs T devaov Koi anoppvTov, i] t ddokcoTos.
Again, in "Epy. 'R/jl^P'
Olcovovs Kpivas oi eV epy/xari tovtco apurroi.
Here, raethinks, I hear you grudge against poetry and
poetical licence, as doubtless you Avould quarrel against pro-
fane authorities, if I should bring you any like examples
out of prosaical writers.
We must see therefore, whether we are not able to
bring examples of the like phrase out of the holy scriptures.
First, that soloecophanes is foimd in St Luke, I will refer
you to the first cap, of his gospel, ver. 74, and cap. vi. ver. 4 ;
likewise, Acts xxvii. 3, and Acts xiii. 6. But for the like
soloecophanes to tliis in question, Luke xxii., I will send
you first to St Paul, Col. i. 25. TrXrjpwaai tov Xoyov
Tov kdenv, to ixvaTYjpiov to airoKeKpvufxevov utto twv
a'lwvwv Kai utto toov yevewv, vvv\ oe €(pavepu}6r] toi^ ayioi^
avTou. In this verse to nvcxTripiov must needs be the ac-
cusative case, as tov Xoyov is, by apposition : then is to
aTTOKeKpufxiuLevov for all the world as to cK-^vvofxevoVy the
nominative case, signifying Quod ahsconditum fuit, which the
latter part of the verse, vvvl Se ecpavepwOri, doth most plainly
declare : for what else should be the nommative case to
the verb ectavepwOr} ? And even so your vulgar Latin text
hath it translated : JSt impleam verbum Dei, mysterium
quod ahsconditum fuit a sceculis et generationihus, nunc
autem mwiifestatum est Sanctis ejus^ But because this is
not so evident, for that the nominative case and the accu-
sative of the neuter gender be of one termination, I will
bring you yet more plain examples out of the Revelation
of St John, chap. i. 4. •^api's vfxlv koi e'lpr^vri otto tov
6 wi/, Koi o ^v, Kal 6 epy^ofievos. " Grace to you, and peace
from him (or from God, as some copies have) wliich is, and
which was, and which is to come." Would not your grammar
say it is a plain solecism, because he saitli not, tou oi'to?,
and ToD epj^ofxevov ? What have you here to quarrel ? Is
not a-TTo TOV 6 (vv and 6 €p')^6fxevos the same phrase that
is in Luke, tm ainaTi, to eK-^vvonevov'? Well, let us go
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 143
a little further, to the next verse of the same chapter, where
we read thus : Kai ctTro 'Iriaov X-picrrov, o /maprvs o Trtaros,
o Ti pwTOTOKo^ eK Twv veKpwv, Kai o apywv twv fiaaiXecov
T^9 7^9. " And from Jesus Christ, which is a faithful wit-
ness, the first-born from the dead, and prince over the kings
of the earth." The more usual construction would require
that he should have said, airo lijcrov KpiaTov tov nxaprvpo^
Tov TTiaTou, TOV TTpoTOTOKov Ktti TOV apyovTo<i, but that
he useth the same soloecophanes which St Luke doth, chap,
xxii. (if the reading be not altered), where the article pre-
positive is put in the place of the subjunctive, and agreeth
not in case with the antecedent, as often it doth, but being
the nominative case, cometh before the verb eart, which is
not expressed, but must needs be understood ; as even your
vulgar translator doth acknowledge, rendering it in both
verses thus : ab eo qui est, et qui erat, et qui venturus est,
and a Jesu Christo qui est testis fidelis, S^c. These exam-
ples, I doubt not but they are sufiicient to satisfy any rea-
sonable man, to shew that I have not invented a new
construction that never was heard of, to save Beza's credit,
and whereof I am able to give not so much as one example.
But that I may overthrow M. Martin's vain insultation
with a whole cloud of examples, I will yet add one or two
more. In the same Revelation, chap. viii. 9, thus we read : koI
airedave to Tp'iTov twv KTianaToov tcov ev ttj OaXaaarj ra
e^oj'Ta x^vp^cts, " and there died the third of all creatures
which are in the sea, which had Hves." Your vulgar Latin
text turneth it thus : £t mortua est tertia pars creaturce,
eorum quoe habebant animas in mari : "And there died the
tliird part of the creatures, of those things which had life
in the sea." In which translation, although the order of the
words which St John useth is somewhat inverted, yet the
sense remaineth the same; and ra ep^oj/ra is translated, quce
habebant, which agreeth not with twv KTiafxaTwv in case,
(as every chUd that can decUne a Greek noun doth know,)
where otherwise the most common construction were to have
said, TWV KTiafJiaTwv, twv e-^ovTwv. Therefore the phrase
a,nd construction is the same, which is Luke xxii.. Tip al/uaTi,
TO eK-^vvonevov. What can fine M. Gregorie, which carpeth
at my skill, that speak so barbarously and rustically of
Greek elegancies, what can Master Gregorie Martin, I say,
144 A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH [cH.
the great linguist of the seminary of Rheims, allege, why
these phrases are not alike ? or rather, changing the words,
in figure the very same ? And if he have anything to cavil
against this example, as I see not what he can have, yet
have I another out of the same book, chap. iii. 12 : kuI
ypa\j/w eir avrov to opofxa tov Qeov fxov, kuI to ovoixa tj/s"
iroXews tou Qeov fiov t^9 /catv^s lepovaaXrj/Xf ri KaTajBaivovaa
€K TOV ovpavov airo tov Qeov fxov. "And I will write upon
him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my
God, the new Jerusalem, which descendeth out of heaven
from my God." The vulgar Latin translation differeth not
from this, which saith : Et scribam super eum nomen Dei
met, et nomen civitatis Dei mei, novce Jerusalem, quce
descendit de ccelo a Deo meo. Here the antecedent is of
the genitive case, the relative of the nominative, which cometh
before the verb eo-rt, understood in the participle KaTaf3ai-
vovaa, as in Luke xxii. it is in the participle eK-y^vvofxevov.
By these examples, in seeking whereof, I promise you,
I spent no great time, you may learn to be wiser hereafter,
and not to condemn all men, beside yourself, out of your
reader's chair at Eheims, of ignorance, unskilfulness, bar-
barousness, rusticity, yea, wilfulness and madness, where you
yourself deserve a much sharper censure through your im-
moderate insultation, the matter thereof being both more false
and forged, than we might justly have borne, if we had
been overtaken with a little grammatical ignorance. By
these examples I trust you see, or if you will needs be
bhnd, all the young Grecians in England may see, that as
in the Latin translation you confess the relative standeth
more likely to be referred to the word sanguine than to
the word calix, so in the Greek there is no help to remove
it from the next manifest and necessary antecedent to a
word further off, with which the signification of the participle
cannot agree. For who would say, that a cup is shed for
us ? And though you make a metonymy of the cup for
that which is in the cup, what is that, I pray you ? Not
wine, you will say, I am sm'e, but the blood of Christ. If
you so resolve it, then foUoweth that vain nugation which
I have noted against Saunder : " This blood in the cup,
which blood is shed for you, is the new testament in my
blood." Is that blood in the cup diverse from that blood
J
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 145
in which the now testament is confirmed ? If it be the
same, how often was it shed ? If it were shed in the cup,
how holdeth your unbloody sacrifice ? Or how can you
say that it was shed in the cup, where, by your rule of
concomitants, it is not separated from the body, as it was
in his passion ? K it were not separated, as certainly his
blood was not separated from liis body, in the supper, how
can that which was in the cup, be liis blood that was shed
for us? for the word of "shedding" signifieth separation.
Wherefore it cannot be referred to that in the cup, but
to his blood wliicli was shed on the cross for us ; so that
there is a manifest enallage, or change of the tense ; the •
present being put for the future, as it is manifest by the
other evangelists, where the word of shedcUng can be re-
ferred to notliing else, but to his blood shed upon the cross.
Wherefore the Greek text can here resolve you of no am-
biguity, as in the place you cite. Acts xiv. Neither was
there ever any ancient writer that stumbled upon this am-
biguity; but all with one consent refer the word of shedding
to his blood, and not to the cup or the content thereof,
so many as speak of it.
Martin. And this is one commodity among others, that we reap of ixrARUN,
the Greek text, to resolve the ambiguity that is sometime in the Latin : '^^•
whereas you neither admit the one nor the other, but as you list ; neither
doth the Greek satisfy you, be it never so plain and infallible, but
you wiU devise that it is corrupted, that there is a solecism, that the
same solecism is an elegancy, and thereupon you translate your own
device, and not the word of God. Which whence can it proceed, but of
most wUftil corruption? See chap. xvii. num. 10, 11, 12.
Fulke. This is nothing but general raihng, and im- Fulke,
pudent slandering, as in the particular sections before is
proved. For we neither devise that the text is corrupted,
to alter any thing of the text, no, not where it is undoubtedly
corrupted, as in the name of Jeremy, Matt, xxvii. : neither
devise we a solecism, when we admonish that there is
a soloeco2)hanes\ which of no papist that ever I heard of
was before observed : neither make we a solecism to be
an elegancy, when we say against them that confound a
solecism with soloecophanes, that solmcophanes is a figure
used sometimes of most eloquent writers, neither is it straight-
[' That which seems to be a solecism, but vet is not.]
r 1 10
I FULKE. J
146 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH . [CH.
way a vii'tue or elegancy of speech, whatsoever eloquent
writers sometimes have used : wherefore we translate no-
thing of our own device, but we translate the word of God
without any wilful corruption.
Maktin, Martin. If in ambiguous Hebrew words of doubtful signification,
^'' where the Greek giveth one certain sense, you refuse the Greek, and
take your advantage of the other sense; what is this but wilful par-
Psai. cxix. tiality ? So you do in Redime eleernosynis peccata tua, Dan. iv. : and,
Oeton. 'Nun}. , ^ . , . .^ . ., •
Ps. cxxxix. IttcUnavi cor meum ad faciendas justtjicationes tuas propter retributionem ;
and, Nimis honorati sunt amici tui, Deus, etc. : and yet at another time
you follow the determination of the Greek for another advantage, as
Psalm xcviii. "Adore his footstool, because he is holy." Whereas in the
W'Slp Hebrew it may be as in our Latin, "because it is holy." See chap. xiii.
vj»^ num. 18; chap. ix. num. 23, 24; chap, xviii. num. 1, 2. So you flee
from the Hebrew to the Greek, and from this to that again, from both
Lib. ii. cont. to the vulgar Latin, as is shewed in other places ; and as St Augustine
Faust, cap.22. ^^\y ^q Faustus the Manichee, " You are the rule of truth : whatsoever
is for you, is true ; whatsoever is against you, is not true."
FuLKE Fulke. If Hebrew words be ambiguous, we take that
41' sense which agreeth with other places that are plain and
without all ambiguity ; and this is no partiahty, but wisdom
and love of the truth : not to groimd any new doctrine
upon such places only, where the Hebrew word is ambigu-
ous, and may have divers significations ; as you do the
redemption of sins by alms, upon that place of Daniel iv. ;
where you confess that the Hebrew word is ambiguous,
and are not able to bring any one plain text for it, where
the words are not ambiguous. But we ground our refusal
upon a hundred plain texts, that ascribe the whole glory
of our ransom and redemption from sins to the only mercy
of God. But as well this text as the other two, that you
cite in the chapters by you quoted, shall be throughly
discussed, to see if you can have any advantage at our
translators of the same. But on the contrary side you
say that at another time we foUow the determination of
the Greek for another advantage, as in that text. Psalm
P Ps. cxix. 112. i. e. in the octonary, or division of eight verses,
which commences with the Hebrew letter 3j fiun.']
[" Vides certe quam nescias, vel te nescire fingas, quid sit evan-
gelium, nee ex doctrina apostolica, sed ex vestro errore nomines evan-
gelium. Augustin. Contra Faustum, Lib. n. 2. Opera. Vol. viii. p. 316.3
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 147
xcviii. " Adoro his footstool, because he is holy," whereas [Psai. xcix.]
in the 'Hebrew it may be as in your Latin, " because it is
holy." I answer, that we follow not the determination of
the Greek, as moved by the only authority thereof, for any
advantage, but because we learn our interpretation out of
the very psalm itself. For whereas the prophet in the 5th
verse hath said, " Exalt ye the Lord om* God, and wor-
ship at the footstool of his feet, for he is holy ;" in the last
verse of the same he repeateth again the like exhortation :
" Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship him in liis holy
hill; for the Lord our God is holy." In this verse for his
' footstool' he placeth the 'holy lull,' which expresseth where
his footstool was, namely the holy ark, and for cadhosh hu, ';£i\'-\p
'holy is he,' now he sayeth, cadosh Jehova, 'holy is the Lor.d ^^^^
our God,' which putteth the other verse out of ambiguity. .»:^-;_-,
Wherefore if we take testimony of the Greek, we fly not . "^
to the Greek from the Hebrew, but shew that the Hebrew ' t
may so be understood, having other more certain arguments
than the testimony of the Greek. Again, it is utterly false,
that you say we fly from both Hebrew and Greek to the
Latin ; for we never fly from the Hebrew, but acknowledge
it as the fountain and spring, from whence we must re-
ceive the infallible truth of God's word of the Old Testa-
ment, following the Latin or Greek so far as they follow
the truth of the Hebrew text, and no farther. As for the
saying of St Augustine to Faustus the Manichee, " You
are the rule of truth," [it] doth most aptly agree to you
papists and to your pope : for you wUl not afford unto the
scriptures themselves any authority or certainty of truth,
but upon your approbation and interpretation. ^Vlierefore
not only that which he saith" to Faustus the Manichee
agreeth aptly to you, ' Whatsoever is for you is true, what-
soever is against you is not true :' but that also which he
reporteth Tyconius the Donatist said of his sect, Quod vo-
lumus sanctum est, "Whatsoever we will is holy," you your-
selves take upon you. For no doctrine is good nor holy,
though it be proved never so plainly out of the holy scrip-
ture, except it be allowed by you for catholic and holy.
Martin. What shall I speak of the Hebrew particle vau ? which Martin,
(Gen. xiv. 18.) must in no case be translated because, lest it should
10—2
148 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
|nb Kini prove that Melchisedec offered sacrifice of bread and wine, as all the
' fathers expound it: but (Lukei. 42) where they translate the equiva-
lent Greek i)article Kal , there Beza proveth the said particle to signify
Quia bene- because, and translateth accordingly, and the English Bezites likewise.
benedietus I will not Urge them, why : we like the sense well, and Theophylact
tristui/'^" so expoundeth it. But if the Greek copulative maybe so translated,
why not the Hebrew copulative much inoi*e, which often in the scripture
is used in that sense 1 See chap. xvii. num. 13, 14.
FuLKE, Fulke. That the Hebrew particle vau is sometimes to
be taken for a causal conjunction, and signifieth because,
no man denieth : but that it must be taken so Gen. xiv.
because koI is taken so Luke i. 42, what reason is this?
But all the fathers (say you) expound Melchisedec's bring-
ing forth of bread and wine to be a sacrifice. I grant that
many do, but not all : yet do not they ground upon the
conjunction causal ; for Cyprian, Lib. ii. Epist. 3, ad Ccecilium,
readeth thus, Fuit autera sacerdos, " and he was a priest."
So doth Hierome, Epist. ad Evagrium, expounding the very
Hebrew text, say, Et Melchisedech rex Salem protulit por-
nem et vinum, erat autem sacerdos Dei excelsi. The word
protulit also hath Ambrose, de mysteriis initiand. Augus-
tine upon the title of the 33rd Psalm, Cyprian in the
epistle before named; and the vulgar Latin hath profercfiis.
Hierome, Ep. ad Evagrium, sheweth that the best learned
of the Hebrews' judgment was, that Melchisedec Victori
Abraham obviam processerit, et in refectionem tarn ipsius,
quam pugnatorum ipsius^, panes vinumque protulerit : " Mel-
chisedec came forth to meet Abraham the conqueror, and for
refection, as well of him as of his warriors, brought forth
bread and wine." And after many interpretations of the
Greek writers which he rehearseth, in the end he will de-
termine nothing of his own judgment. The author of Scho-
la^tica Historia, cap. 64, agreeth with the interpretation of
the Hebrews. '^At vera Melchisedech rex Salem obtidit ei
P "EvKoyrjfievTj crii iv yvvai^\, Koi evKoyrjfievos 6 Kapnos Trjs Kot\ias
a-ov. Luke i. 42.
"And blessed is the fruit of thy womb," Cranmer, Tyndale, Rheims,
Authorised. " Because the fruit of thy womb is blessed," Geneva.
P (yus. Edit. Martianay, Vol. ii. p. 66.]
P Genesis xiv. 18. The Vulgate has, "At vero Melchisedech rex
Salem, proferens panem et vinum." Augustine says, Et tantus erat
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 149
panem et viniim : quod quasi exponens Joseplms ait : Mi-
nistravit exercitui xenia, et multam abundantiam rerum
opportunarum simul exhibuit, et super epulas benedixit
Deimi, qui Abrahce subdiderat inimicos. Erat enim sacerdos
Dei altissimi. "But Melchisedec, king of Salem, offered unto
liim bread and Avine; which Josephus as it were expounding
of it saith : ' He ministered to his army the duties of hos-
pitality, and gave him great plenty of things necessary, and
beside the feast, or at the feast, he blessed God, which had
subdued unto Abraham his enemies : for he was a priest of
the liighest God'." Therefore not all the fathers so judged
of Melchisedec's bread and wine. But against all them
that referred the same to his priesthood, we oppose the
apostle to the Hebrews, chap, vii., who, searching of pur-
pose whatsoever was in Melchisedec, wherein he resem-
bleth Christ, so that he omitteth not the interpretation of
his name nor of his city, maketh no mention of his sacri-
fice of bread and wine ; whereas nothing seemeth to have
greater resemblance than that, which deceived many of
the ancient fathers, but yet was not observed of the Holy
Ghost.
Martin. But I would ask rather, why Kexapirco^ievrj'^ may not in any IMartin,
case be translated, " full of grace ;" whereas i^XKotfievos^ is translated,
" full of sores ;" both words being of like form and force. See chap. Luke xvi. '20.
xviii. num. 4, 5.
Fulke. The former word, being a participle, is best Fulke,
translated by a participle 'freely beloved:' for the other, if '*'^'
we had a participle in Enghsh, to say, 'sored or botched,'
Melchisedec, a quo benediceretur Abraham. Protulit panem et vinum,
et benedLxit Abraham, et dedit ei decimas Abraham. Videte quid pro-
tulit. Augustin. Enarratio in Psalmum xxxiii. cap. 5. Opera, Vol. iv.
p. 301.
Et Melehisedech rex Salem protulit panem et vinum. Fuit autem
sacerdos Dei summi, et benedixit Abraham. Cypriani Epist. lxiii.
Opera, edit. Baluzi, Paris. 1726. p. 105.]
[■* xa'/3f. Kexapi-rcofiiVT]. Luke i. 28, "Ave, gratia plena," Vulg.
" Hail, full of grace," Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, Rheims. " Hail, thou
that art freely beloved," Geneva. " Hail, thou that art in high favour,"
Bishops'. " Hail, thou that art highly favoured," Authorised version.]
P OS f^f^XtjTo npbs Tov nvXcova avroi T^X/cw/xe'i/oy. Luke xvi. 20.
"Qui jacebat ad januam ejus ulceribus plenus," Vulg. " Full of
sores," all the Versions.]
150 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
we would use it ; but for lack of a participle, we are con-
strained to use the noun, 'full of sores.' I may likewise
ask you, whether you would translate Ke')(^pvawfxevo^ fuU of
gold, or gilded? And so of all other verbs of that form,
where there is in English a participle : why ought not like-
wise K€')(^apiTwix€vo^ be translated by the participle?
Martin, Martin. Again, why say they (Heb. xiii.) "Let your conversation
, • be without covetousness," and say not, " Let marriage be honourable
/oos' 6 Tp6- ^^ ^^^' ^^^ the bed undefiled ;" both being expressed alike by the
T"^: "^'V"' apostle, and by way of exhortation, as the rest that goeth before and
o yafio^ . f^yQ^g^ij 2 See cliap. xv. num. 15.
FuLKE, Fulke. Although the sense were not so greatly different,
■* yet the participle ^e following in the latter part of the verse,
7rdpvov9 ^€, &c., " but fornicators and adulterers God wUl
judge," sheweth that the former part of the verse is an
affirmation rather than an exhortation. Again, the purpose
of the apostle is plain, to dissuade them from whoredom
and adultery; and not only to exhort married men to use
marriage temperately, but for avoiding of whoredom and
adultery, which God will punish, to shew the remedy that
God hath provided for man's infirmity to be honourable
and void of filthiness.
Martin, Martin. Are we too suspicious, think you ? How can " fear " be
translated " that which he feared ;" " repentance," " them that repent
»Beza, or amend their life;" "tradition," the doctrine delivered; "temples,"
sTYie^Ai^' shrines ; " idols,'' devotions ; " every human creature," all ordinances of
andiii. man; "foreknowledge," providence; " soul," carcase ; "hell," grave;
" altar," temple ; " table," altar ; and such like 1
p d(pi\apyvpos 6 rporros. Heb. xiii. 5. " Sint mores sine avaritia,"
Vulg. "Let your conversation be without covetousness," Tyndale,
Cranmer, Geneva, Bishops' Bible, Authorised version. "Let your
manners be without avarice," Rheims.]
P TijLtios 6 yaftos iv Traert, Ka\ 77 koItt] dfiiavTos. Heb. xiii. 4. " Ho-
norabile connubium in omnibus, et thorns immaculatus," Vulg.
" Let wedlock be had in price in all points, and let the chamber be
undefiled," Tyndale. " Wedlock is to be had in honour among all men,
and the bed undefiled," Cranmer, Geneva. " Marriage, honourable in
all, and the bed undefiled," Rheims. " Marriage is honourable in all,
and the bed undefiled," Authorised. "Wedlock is honourable among
all men, and the bed undefiled," Bishops' Bible.]
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 151
Fulke. We think you not more suspicious, than maU- Fulke,
cious, i'From his fear," may well (for explication sake) be ^•
translated, " from that wliich he feared^," Heb. v. 7, even as
hope is sometime taken for that which we hope for, as
Col. i. 5. Tit. ii. 13. So may "repentance" in Beza Acts xxvi.*
20, signify them that repent, as "cii'cumcision" often signifieth
them that are circumcised: neither is there any change of the
sense, to say the fruits worthy of repentance, or the fruits
worthy of them that repent, or amend their life. And I
pray what doth "tradition," 2 Thess. ii. and iii. signify, but
the doctrine dehvered^ ? Doth not the apostle declare, what
liis tradition was, when he delivereth this doctrine, that if "
any man will not work, let him not eat, 2 Thess. iii. 10.?
The word vaom, as it is used, Acts xix. 24, signifieth neither
temples nor shrines®, but certain idolatrous coins, on which
was stamped the figure of Diana's temple, more like to your
popish shrines than to the temple of God. Where " idols"
[ Kai fla-aKovcrdfls dno rfjs ciXa/Sei'ay. Heb. V. 7. " Exauditus est
pro sua reverentia," Vulg. "Exauditus esset ex inetu," Beza, 1566.
" And was herd for his reverence," Wiclif. " Heard, because of his
godliness," Tyndale. " Was heard, because of his reverence," Cran-
mer, Rhemish. "And was heard in that wliich he feared," Geneva,
Tomson's translation of Beza, Edit. Barker, 1583.]
1^* Tois edveacp airayyiWav fieTavoelv. Acts xxvi. 20. "Annuntia-
bam ut poenitentiam agerent," Vulgate. "Annuntiavi ut resipisce-
rent," Beza, edit. 1566. "That they should repent," New Test.,
Englished by W. Tomson, from Beza's version, 1583.]
[* Koi KpareiTe ras 7rapa86(reis. 2 Thess. iL 15. " Et tenete traditio-
nes," Vulgate. "Et retinete traditam doctrinam," Beza, 1582. "Et
tenete traditam doctrinam," Beza, 1556. "Keep the instructions which
ye have been taught," Tomson's translation of Beza, Geneva. " Holde
ze the tradiciouns," Wiclif. " Keep the ordinances," Tyndale, Cran-
mer. " Hold the traditions," Rhemish, Authorised.
Ka\ firi Kara ttjv iTapabo<nv t)v TrapeXa^e. 2 Thess. iii. 6. "Et
non secundum traditionem," Vulgate. "Et non ex tradita doctrina,"
Beza, 1566. "And not after the techynge," Wiclif. "And not after
the institution," Tyndale, Cranmer. *' And not after the instruction,"
Geneva, Tomson's version. "And not according to the tradition,"
Rhemish. "And not after the tradition," Authorised.]
[^ TToiav vaovs dpyvpovs 'ApT€p,i8os. Acts xix. 24. "Faciens eedes ar-
genteas Dianse," Vulg. " Qui faciebat templa argentea Dianae," Beza,
1566. " Which made silver shrines for Diana," Tyndale, Cranmer,
Geneva, Authorised.]
152 A defencp: of the English [ch.
are translated ' devotions', I knoAv not, except you mean
Acts xvii. 23, where the word is aefiaafxaTa^ , which your
vulgar Latin translator, 2 Thess. ii., calleth quod colitur,
" that which is devoutly Avorshipped," and so the word
signifieth ' whatsoever is rehgiously worshipped or adored,'
and not "idols," as you say, nor simulacra, "images," as your
translator calleth them, Acts xvii. ; for it is derived of cre/Bd^o),
or cr6/3d^oyuat, which signifieth ' to adore,' ' to worsliip,' 'to
honour devoutly or rehgiously^.' " Every human creature"
signifieth in that place, 1 Pet. ii., every magistrate, of what
creation or ordination soever he be ; and so is meant by
that translation (all ordinances of men), not all laws of men,
wliich yet were not impious, if you add the restraint, "for
the Lord," for whom nothing can be that is against his law.
The rest of your quarrels be all answered before.
Ma II 1 i n , Martin. What caused these strange speeches in theu- English bibles?
. " Thou shalt not leave my soul in the grave." " Thou hast delivered
1 sal. Ixxxvi. >ji
n. my soul from the lowest grave. "A covetous man is a worshipper of
images." " By laying on of the hands of the eldership." " HaU, freely
beloved." " Sui lieth at the door, and thou shalt rule over liim."
"Break off thy sins with righteousness," for "redeem with alms."
" Jealousy is cruel as the grave," for " as hell." Cant. viii. Bib. anno
1579. " The griefs of the grave caught me." Psalm cxvi. And, " God
Taai. xiix. will redeem my soul from the power of the grave." " O grave, I will
be thy destruction." Os. 18, and such like. What made Calvin so
translate into Latin, that if you turn it into English, the sense is, that
Titus iii. God 'poured water upon us abundantly,' meaning the Holy Ghost ? what
else, but because he would take away the necessity of material water in
baptism, as in his commentary and Beza's it is evident ?
FuMvK, Fulke. These speeches are not strange in God's church,
howsoever they sound in your ears. So many of them as
p ava6e<opaiv to cre^aa-fiaTa vfj-cov. Acts xvii. 23. " Videns simu-
lacra vestra," Vulgate. " Contemplans sacra vestra," Beza. " For
as I passed by and beheld your devotions," Geneva 1560, Tomson's
translation of Beza, 1583, though this appeared a year later than
Martin's book : it may, however, be from the first edition of the trans-
lation, printed in 1576.]
[ 'YnorayriTe ovv naaj] avdpanrivTj KTicrei. 1 Pet. ii. 18. " Subjecti
igitur estote omni humanse creaturse," Vulgate. " Subjecti estote
cuivis humanae ordinationi," Beza, 1566. " Submit yourselves unto all
manner ordinance of man," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised.
"Be subject, therefore, to every human creature," Rhemish.]
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 153
translate for sheol the " grave," have their answers, sect. 32,
and chap, vii., which is appointed for that question : " The
covetous man a worshipper of images," sect. 5 of this chap,
and chap. iii. numb. 12. The "laying on of hands of the
eldership" is warranted by the signification of the Greek
word irpea^vTepiov, which signifieth a company of elders,
as it is translated by your own vulgar Latin interpreter,
Luke xxii. QQ. Seniores jjlebis : " The elders of the people ;"
and Acts xxii. 5, he calleth irav to irpea-ftuTepLov, Omnes
majores natu. And for a consistory of elders is the word
preshyterium used in Latin by Cyprian, Lib. in. Epist. 11,
and Lib. ii. Epist. 8, 10. Of " hail, freely beloved," we spake
lately, sect. 43. ; of the text Gen. iv. 7, " sin Beth at the
door," &c. sect. 28, and chap. x. sect. 9 ; of Dan. iv. " break,"
for "redeem thy sins," sect. 41.
If Calvin, Tit. iii., did wrongly interpret that which is
spoken of water, to be meant of the Holy Ghost, what is
that to our translation ? But certain it is, that Calvin never
meant to take away the necessity of material water from
the sacrament of baptism, although he taught that the want
of the external sacrament, where it caiuiot be had, doth
not deprive God's elect from eternal salvation : neither hath
Beza any other meaning in his annotation.
Martin. I had meant to have but briefly skimmed over these IMahtiv,
things, but multitude of matter maketh me too long, as it chanceth to ^^'
a man that wadeth through miry and foul places ; and yet the greatest
demonstration that they are wilful corrupters, is behind, which only I
vsdll add, and for the rest refer the reader to the whole book.
Fulke. It is a small sign, that multitude of matter is Fulke,
cause of your length, when you repeat one matter in so ^'•
many sections : your similitude of a man wading in foul and
mu'y places doth well agree unto you ; for you have been
all this wliile wading in the puddle of your slanders, mis-
prisions, and false accusations, in which you have so berayed
yourself, as you shall not easily purge yourself from the
mire of them. But because you say the greatest demon-
stration that we are wilful corrupters, is behind, though it
be tedious for us to rake in such a gogmire^ of your forge-
ries and false accusations, yet we will take courage, and
[•^ Quagmire.]
154
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[c
consider what main demonstration you can make, to prove
us in our English translations to be wilful corrupters.
Martin,
48.
Tom. 2. fol.
4(»5. edit.
Wittel). anno
1551.
The express
testimonies of
Beza, (whom
the English
heretical
translations
follow here-
in,) that he
doth wilfully
and of pur-
pose translate
against such
and such
catholic
assertions.
FuiiKE,
48.
Martin,
49.
Martin. Doubt you whether they translate of purpose and par-
tiality, in favour of their opinions ? you shall hear themselves say so,
and protest it. If I dealt with Lutherans, this one testimony of Luther
were sufficient, who, being asked why he added "only" into the text,
Rom. iii., answered that he did it to explicate the apostle's sense more
plainly, that is, to make the apostle say more plainly, that faith only
justified. And his disciple Illyricus disputeth the matter, that the
apostle saying, " by faith vnthout works," saith in deed, " only faith."
But because I deal rather with our English Calvinists, and Beza is their
chief translator, and a captain among them, whom they profess to follow
in the title of the New Testament, anno 1680, and by the very name of
their Geneva bibles, let us see what he saith.
Fulke. I think there is no man doubteth but they trans-
lated the scripture with purpose to maintain their opinions ; but
whether they have wittingly and wilfully translated falsely,
to maintain any errors or heretical opinions, that is the matter
in question, and which hath need of your greatest demonstra-
tion to make it apparent. That Luther might rightly inter-
pret the place, Rom. iii., of only faith justifying, by the
excluding of works, I have before acknowledged, and Illyricus
doth rightly defend it. But that he did put in the word
" only" in his translation, which is not in the original, I will
not take upon me to excuse, seeing the truth of that doc-
trine is manifest without that addition; and Luther himself,
in his later editions, hath reformed it. Again, what fault
soever other men have committed in their translation, we are
unjustly charged therewith, except we follow the same in ours.
That we profess to foUow Beza by the very name of our
Geneva bibles, it is a very ridiculous argument : for our Bibles
are so commonly called, because they were translated and first
printed at Geneva, not by Beza, (who at that time had scarce
finished his translation of the New Testament, and never dealt
with translating of the old, so far as we know,) but by certain
godly and learned Enghshmen, which hved there in queen
Mary's time, to enjoy the liberty of a good conscience, which
they could not have in their own country.
Martin. First, concerning iKTavodre, which the vulgar Latin and
Erasmus translate, Agile pcemtentiam, or " Do penance." " This interpre-
I»] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 155
tatkm," saith he, "I refuse for many causes, but for this especially,
that many ignorant persons have taken hereby an occasion of the false
opinions of satisfaction, wherewith the church is troubled at this day."
Lo ! of purpose against satisfaction he will not translate the Greek
word as it ought to be, and as it is proved to signify, both in this book
and in the annotations upon the New Testament. A little after speak-
ing of the same word, he saith, " Why I have changed the name poeiii- Matt. ui. 8.
tentia, I have told a little before ;" protesting that he wUl never use
those words, but resipiscere, and resipiscentia, that is, amendment of Loco supra
life ; because of their heresy, that repentance is nothing else but a mere
amendment of former life, without recompence or satisfaction or penance
for the sins before committed. See chap. xiii.
Fulke. Of piu'pose against the heresy of satisfaction, Fulke,
Beza will not translate the Greek word, as the vulgar Latin ^^•
translator doth, but yet as the Greek word ought to be trans-
lated. Erasmus, finding the vulgar Latin insufficient, hath
added vitoe prions, that is, "repent ye of your former life."
Neither doth Beza find fault with the English word "repent,"
but with the Latin agite pcenitentiam, when you translate it,
"do penance," meaning thereby pain or satisfaction for sins
passed, to be a necessary part of true repentance, which is
not contained in the Greek word /uerai/oeti/', which signifieth
changing of the mind; that is, not only a sorrow for the sin
past, but also a purpose of amendment, which is best expressed
by the Latin word resipiscere, which is always taken in the
good part, as fxcTavoelv is in the scripture, whereas the Latin
words poenitere and poenitentia are used in Latin of sorrow
or repentance that is too late : as poenitere and poenitentia
may be said of Judas' grief of mind, which caused liim to
hang himself, but not fxeravoelv, or fierdvoia, or resipiscere
and resipiscentia: and therefore the Holy Ghost, speaking of
his sorrow, useth another word, mcTafxeXeiv, and /ueTameXeia.
And this is the cause why Beza refused the word poenitentia,
[^ Ferte igitur fructum dignum resipiscentia. Matt. iii. 8., Beza?
Vers. 1556. Ceterum iieravoflv quum est verbum absolutum, proprie
significat post factum sapere, et de errore admisso ita dolere ut cor-
rigas: quod (ut opinor) Latinis proprie significat resipiscere. Bezte,
Annot. in v. 2.
TertuUian's definition of fifravoia is this : Nam et in Graeco sono poe-
nitentiae nomen, non ex delicti confessione, sed ex animi derautatioiie
compositum est. Adversus Marcionem, lib. ii. Opera, p. 472. Edit.
Rigaltii, 1641.]
156 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLLSH [CH.
having a Latin word that more properly doth express the
Greek word; as we might lawfully do in Enghsh, if we had
another English word proper to that repentance which is
always joined with faith and purpose of amendment, for want
whereof we are constrained to use the words repent and
repentance, which may be taken in good part, or in evil : for
we say, repentance too late, and Judas repented too late ;
but there is no fxerdvoia that can be called too late. But
where you say, that resipiscere and resipiscentia is nothing
but amendment of life, and that repentance, in our heresy, is
nothing else but a mere amendment of former life, you speak
untruly : for those words do signify not only amendment of
life, but also sorrow for the sins past, although without re-
compense or satisfaction, wliich you call penance for the sins
before committed; for we know no recompence or satisfaction
made to God for our sins, but the death of Christ, who " is the
propitiation for our sins." 1 John ii. Neither hath your blas-
phemous satisfaction any ground in the Greek word fxeravoeiv,
but only a foolish colour by the Latin translation, agite pceni-
tentiam, wliich it is like your Latin interpreter did never
dream of, and therefore he useth the word resipiscere, 2 Tim. ii.
Of them to whom God should give /ueravoiav, "repentance to
the acknowledging of the truth," et resipiscant, and so they
may repent, or, as you translate it, " recover themselves from
the snare of the devil." Seeing, therefore, repentance is the
gift of God, it is no recompence or satisfaction made by us to
God, to answer his justice ; but an earnest and true grief of
mind for our transgression of God's law, and offending against
his majesty, with a certain purpose and determination of
amendment, so near as God shall give us grace. Hitherto
therefore we have no demonstration of any wilful corruption,
but a declaration of the cause that moved Beza to use a more
exact translation, and such as cometh nearer to the original
word, than that which the vulgar translation hath used, upon
which occasion of a great blasphemy hath been taken, and is
yet maintained.
Martin, Martin. Again, concerning the word "justifications," which in the
scripture very often signify the commandments, he saith thus: "The
mKcuM- Greek interpreters of the bible (meaning the Septuaginta) applieth this
Luke i. 6. word to signify the whole law of God, and therefore commonly it is
wont to be translated word for word, Justificationes : which interpreta-
1.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 157
tion therefore only I rejected, that I might take away this occasion also
of cavilling against justification by faith ;" and so for " justificaHones "
he putteth "constituta," TuUy's word, forsooth, as he saith. Can you
have a more plain testimony of his heretical purpose ?
Fulke. Concerning the Greek word liKamnaui, wliieli Fulke,
Beza translateth constitutionihus, "constitutions;" and you
confess that in scripture it doth very often signify the com-
mandments ; he saith first, that as the whole law of God is
divided into three parts, moral, ceremonial, and juchcial, so
the Hebrews have tlu-ee several words to express the several
precepts of those laws. For the Hebrew word which signifieth
the ceremonial precepts, the Greeks use to translate SiKaiw-
fxaTu. So the sense is, that Zachary and Ehzabeth were just,
Avalking in all the moral commandments, and observing the
holy rites and ceremonies, as much as concerned them : but
the tliird word, which signifieth " judgments," St Luke doth
not add, because the exercise of judicial cases did not belong
unto them, being private persons. After tliis he saith, that
the Greek interpreters of the Bible transferred tliis word unto
the whole law of God, and especially to the holy ceremonies :
so, verily, exceedingly commending the law, that it is a certain
rule of all justice ; and therefore men are wont commonly, in
respect of the word, to turn it "justifications." And this word
in this place, Beza indeed confesseth that he refused to use,
for avoiding of cavillations against justification by faith, seeing
he hath none other word ; neither would he for offence seek
any new word to express justification by faith, whereas the
word ^iKaiiOfxara, in this text, Luke i. 6., signifieth not that
by wliich they were made just, but the commandments or pre-
cepts of God, by walking in which they were declared to be
just. For " by the works of the law" (such as St Luke here
speaketh of) " no flesh shall be justified" before God. Therefore
^tKaiMfxara in this place must have another sense than justi-
fications, namely, commandments, as you say it is often taken,
or constitutions, as Beza calleth them, which before God and
the world are not of such difference, that you should charge
him with wilful corruption for translating that word constitu-
tions, which you confess signifieth very often commandments,
Wlierefore here appeareth no heretical purpose, except you
will say that justification by faith, which St Paul so often, so
diUgently, and so purposedly doth teach, is an heresy.
158
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
Martin,
51.
* Lo! how
simply, Ani-
tna, carcase.
Infernus,
grave.
FuLKE,
51.
Martin. Again, when he had rejected this translation. Act ii. 27,
Non derelinques anirriam meam in inferno, " thou shalt not leave my
soul in hell," 'because,' as he saith, 'hereupon grew the en-ors of
Christ's descending into heU, of limbus, and of purgatory; at length
he concludeth thus : ' Whereas the doubtful interpretation of one or
two words hath brought forth so many monsters, I chose rather simply*
for 'soul' to say carcase; for 'hell,' grave; than to foster these foul
errors.'
Fulke. Beza sheweth, that because the doubtful inter-
pretation of the Hebrew word sheol into ot^j^s, which doth not
properly signify "hell," but a dark place, such as the pit is
wherein the dead are put, and of the poets is taken for hell,
had bred such monsters as limbus patruni, purgatory, and
Christ's descending into them ; therefore he did plamly trans-
late that verse as it is meant, of the raising up of Christ's
body out of the grave; which, if he had translated out of He-
brew, as he did out of Greek, had not been offensive nor
untrue, as I have shewed in answer to your preface, sect. 46,
and of this chapter, sect. 32. But seeing Beza himself hath
altered that translation, and it was never followed of our
English translators, what demonstration is this, that we are
wilful corrupters of the holy scriptures ?
Martin,
52.
ovpavov
Acts iii. 21.
Flac. niyr.
Fulke,
62.
Martin. Again, when he had translated for " Whom heaven must
receive," thus, " who must be contained in heaven," he saith : ' Whereas
we have used the passive kind of speech, rather than the active,' which
is in the Greek, 'we did it to avoid all ambiguity. For it is very
expedient that there should be in the church of God this perspicuous
testimony against them, that for ascending by faith into heaven, so to
be joined to our Head, obstinately maintain that Christ must be called
again out of heaven unto us :' meaning his presence in the blessed
sacrament, and inveighing no less against the Lutherans than the
catholics, as the Lutherans do here against him for this wilful inter-
pretation, and that by Calvin's own judgment, who thinketh it a forced
translation.
Fulke. True it is, that he meant concerning the manner
of Christ's presence in the blessed sacrament, and that he so
translated, to exclude the carnal manner of presence, which
the papists have invented : but all this while the translation
is true, and warranted by Gregory Nazianzen, as I have
shewed before, sect. 36 of this chapter. For he that saith,
'heaven must receive Christ,' (as you do,) cannot deny, except
he be mad, but that Christ must be received of heaven. So
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 159
that Beza doth none otherwise translate, than you do, Qui
dcemonia hahebant; which is actually thus to be translated,
"those who had devils," and you say, 'which were possest of
devils,' that is, were had of devils. That the Lutherans did
find fault with Beza's translation, it proveth it not to be false :
he hath justified it sufficiently in his answer to Selneccerus
and the divines of Jena. Neither doth Calvin (as you say
untruly) think it a forced translation; but not weighing the
sentence sufficiently, supposeth that the words are placed am-
biguously, for that it seemeth to be doubtful whether we
should say, that heaven must receive Christ, or that Christ
must receive heaven. But if it be once granted (as it is of
you) that heaven must receive Christ, there is neither Calvin
nor niyricus, nor any man that beareth the face but of a
young grammarian, yea, of a reasonable man, which can deny
that conversion by the passive : Christ must be received of
heaven. Therefore, if you had any respect of your credit
with men of understanding, you would not for shame rehearse
this quarrel so often ; which hath not so much as any colour or
shew of reason to maintain it, but that you abuse the names
of niyricus and Calvin, as misliking it, whose arguments by
no means will serve your turn, because that which is denied
by them, or doubtful to them, is plain and confessed by you.
Martin. But Beza goeth forward still in this kind. Rom. v. 18, Martin,
whereas Erasmus had put propagatum est, indifferently, both of
Adam's sin, which made us truly sinners, and of Christ's justice, which
maketh us truly just; he rejecting it, among other causes why it dis-
pleased him, saith : " That old error of the sophists," meaning catholics,
" which for imputative justice put an inherent quality in the place, is
so great and so execrable to all good men, that I think nothing is so
much to be avoided as it."
Fulke. A manifest echpsis, or want of words, being in Fclke,
that verse, for which Erasmus hath put pr&pagatum est, ^^'
which word is ambiguous, and may give occasion of error, for
men to think that the righteousness of Christ cometh by pro-
pagation, as the guiltiness of Adam doth ; Beza thought good
to supply the lack, rather by such words as are warranted by
the text, verses 12, 15, and 16, and can give no occasion of
error. And therefore thus he rendereth that verse : Nempe
igitur, sicut per unam offensam reatua venit in omnes homi-
160 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
nes ad condemnationem ; ita per unam justificationem bene-
ficium redimdavit in omnes homines ad justificationem vitce.
" Now therefore, as by one offence guiltiness came upon all
men unto condemnation ; so by one justification the benefit
abounded toward all men unto justification of life." In this
verse these words, "guiltiness came," and "the benefit
abounded," are added for expUcation sake, and are taken out
of the verses going before, in which the apostle speaketh of
the same matter. Therefore Beza, to avoid occasion of the
heresy of the papists, of justice inherent, among other causes
which he rehearseth, refuseth that word by which Erasmus
supphed the text, and useth such words for that purpose, as
the apostle himself in the verses jirecedent doth off^er, for this
necessary supply : which seeing it must be made, that there
may be a sense and understanchng, who can mislike that it
should be made by the apostle's own words ? or who can
suppose that the apostle would leave any other words to be
understood, than such as he himself had before expressed ?
And as for the heresy of inherent justice, [it] can have no hold
in this verse, except some such word be added for supply, as
the apostle never used in this case. That Christ's justice doth
make us as truly just, as Adam's sin made us truly sinners,
there is no question: but by what means we are made just, we
say, as the scrip tm^e teacheth us to speak, that justice is im-
puted to us through faith, Rom, iv. The papists say it is a
quahty inherent within us; for which words and matter they
have no warrant in the holy scripture.
Madtin, Martin. These few examples prove unto us that the scriptures
' ■ translated verbatim, exactly, and according- to the proper use and signi-
fication of the words, do by the heretics' confession make for the
catholics ; and therefore Beza saitli he altereth the words into other :
and, I think, it may suffice any indifferent reader to judge of his purpose
and meaning in other places of his translation, and consequently of theirs
that either allow him, or follow him, which are our English Calvinists
and Bezites. Many other ways there are to make most certain proof
Cai. Heb of their wilfulness, as when the translation is framed according to their
Titus iii. 6. false and heretical commentary ; and when they will avouch their trans-
Beza ^ Thess
ii. 15. 'and lations out of profane writers. Homer, Plutarch, Pliny, Tully, Virgil,
"'■ ■ and Terence, and reject the ecclesiastical use of words in the scriptures
and fathers; which Beza doth for the most part always. But it were
infinite to note all the marks, and by these the wise reader may conceive
the rest.
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 161
Fulke. These examples prove nothing less. For to run Fulke,
over them all briefly, the first two we translate verbatim, ^^'
"A man is justified by fiiith without the works of the law,"
and "repent" and "repentance" we say for /ueravoelv and
fxeTcivoia. What make these for popery ? If Luke i. 6, we
should call ^iKaKOfxara, "justifications," what should popery
gain but a vain cavil, when yourselves confess, that those
justifications are often used for commandments? Acts ii. 27,
all our EngUsh translations are as you would have them,
"Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy holy
one to see corruption ;" by which verse no descent into
limbus, but the resurrection from death, can be proved.
If we translate as you do Acts iii. 21, "whom heaven
must receive," we will easily convince that Christ must be
received of heaven. In the last example the question is not,
how the word is to be translated, but by what word the
want of the text is to be suppUed ; which we supply not with
words of our own, but with the apostle's own words.
Have you not gained greatly by translating verbatim,
exactly, and according to the proper use and signification of
the words ? I like well, that every indifferent reader may
judge by these examples of Beza's purpose in other places
of his translation. But you have two other ways to make
certain proof of their wilfulness. The first is, when the trans-
lation is framed according to their heretical commentary.
A reasonable man would think rather that the commentary
were framed according to the text, than the text to the
commentary. But to justify the truth of those translations,
for the first text you quote, it is handled sect. 26 of tliis
chapter, and so consequently cap. vii. The second is answered
sect. 46 ; the other two concerning tradition sect. 23 of the
preface, and in the chapter following. The second way of
proof is, when they wijl avouch their translations out of pro-
fane writers. I think there is no better way to know the
proper or cUverse signification of words, than out of ancient
writers, though they be never so profane, who used the words
most indifferently in respect of our controversies, of which
they were altogether ignorant. As for the ecclesiastical use
of words in the scripture and the fathers, which Beza (you
say) doth for the most part reject, it is untrue : except there
be good and sufficient cause why he should so do, warranted
[fulke.J
162 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH,
by the scripture itself, or necessary circumstances of the
places which he doth translate. For if the scripture have
used a word in one signification sometimes, it is not ne-
cessary that it should always use it in the same signification,
when it is proved by ancient writers that the word hath other
significations, more proper to the place, and agreeable to the
rule of faith, which perhaps the usual signification is not. As
for example, the scriptm^e useth very often this word Trots for
a "boy," or "servant :" but when the same word is apphed to
our Saviour Christ in the prayer of the apostles. Acts iv. 27,
who would not translate it "child," or "son," as the word doth
sometime, but more seldom, signify ? How the fathers of the
church have used words, it is no rule for translators of the
scripture to follow ; who oftentimes used words as the people
did then take them, and not as they signified in the apostles'
time : as fxeravoia for a public testification of repentance,
which we call "penance," ■^^eiporovia for "imposition of hands,"
and such lilie ; in which sense these words were never used
before the apostles' times, and therefore it is not like that
they would begin a new use of them, without some manifest
explication of their meaning, without the which no man
could have understood them ; as they have done in the use
of these words Tr/crTi?, (iarrTidiJia^ eKKXrjcria, and such like.
It is not a fault therefore prudently to seek even out of pro-
fane writers, what is the proper signification of words, and.
how many significations a word may have, and reverently to
judge, which is most apt for the place to be translated, and
most agreeable with the Holy Ghost's meaning in that text ;
and not always to be tied to the usual signification of words,
as they are sometimes taken in scripture, and much less
as they are used of the ancient fathers.
Martin, Martin. But would you think that these men could notwithstand-
Annot. ing speak very gravely and honestly against voluntary and wilful
translations of scripture, that so notoriously offend therein themselves ?
Hearken what Beza saith against Castalio and the like. " The matter,"
saith he, " is now come to this point, that the translators of scripture
out of the Greek into Latin, or into any other tongue, think that they
may lawfully do any thing in translating. Whom if a man reprehend,
he shall be answered by and by, that they do the office of a translator,
not that translatcth word for word, but that expresseth the sense. So
it Cometh to pass, that whiles every man will rather freely follow hia
own judgment, than be a religious interpreter of the Holy Ghost, he
Acts X. 46.
I.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 163
doth rather pervert many things than translate them." Is not this well
said, if he had done accordingly 1 but doing the clean contrary, as hath
been proved, he is a dissembling hypocrite in so saying, and a wilful
heretic in so doing, and condemned by his own judgment.
Fulke. No wise man doubteth, but they could both Fulke,
speak very gravely and avoid most rehgiously all voluntary
and wilful translations of scripture, that might tend to main-
tain any error. And the rather they will be persuaded, that
Beza hath avoided that lewd kind of translation, for which
he reproveth Castalio, when they shall see that you, so
malicious an enemy unto him, having spent all your invention
to seek holes in Ms translation, can find nothing but such
childish cavils, as when they be discovered, men will marvel
that you were not ashamed to move them.
Martin. But after this general view of their wilful piirpose and Martin,
heretical intention, let us examine their false translations more particu- *
larly, and argue the case with them more at large, and press them to
answer, whether in their conscience it be so or no, as hitherto is said ;
and that by several chapters of such controversies as their corruptions
concern ; and first of all (without further curiosity whence to begin, in
cases so indifferent) of traditions.
Fulke. The more particularly you examine our trans- Fulke,
lations, the freer, I hope, they shall be found from false- ^^•
hood and witful corruption. And the more at large you
argue the case, and press us to answer, the more you shall
make the case to appear worse on your side, and the truth
clearer on our part. And as God is witness of our con-
science and sincerity in setting forth his word, without adulte-
ration or corruption; so I appeal to the consciences of all
indiiferent readers, whether hitherto you have gotten any
advantage against us in this whole chapter, which yet you
profess to be the abridgement and sum of your whole
treatise.
Jl— 2
164 A DEPENCK OP THE ENGLISH [CH.
CHAPTER II.
Heretical Translation of Holy Scripture against Apostolical
Traditions.
Matitin, 1. Martin. This is a matter of such importance, that if they should
grant any traditions of the apostles, and not pretend the written word
« See the an- Only, they know that by "^such traditions, mentioned in all antiquity, their
the new tes- religion were wholly defaced and overthrown. For remedy whereof,
2'Thess.'ii. 15. ^^d for the defacing of all such traditions, they bend their translations
against them in this wonderful manner. Wheresoever the holy scrip-
ture speaketh against certain traditions of the Jews, partly frivolous,
partly repugnant to the law of God, there all the English translations
'jrapd6o<ri<!. follow the Greek exactly, never omitting this word " tradition." Con-
trariwise, wheresoever the holy scripture speaketh in the commendation
of traditions, to wit, such traditions as the apostles delivered to the
church, there all their said translations agree, not to follow the Greek,
which is still the selfsame word; but for "traditions," they translate
" ordinances," or " instructions." Why so, and to what purpose ? We
appeal to the worm of their conscience, which continually accuseth
them of an heretical meaning, whether by urging the word, "traditions,"
wheresoever they are discommended, and by suppressing the word where-
soever they are commended, their purpose and intent be not to signify
to the reader that alljtraditions are naught, and none good ; all reproveable,
none allowable.
FuLKE, 1. Fulke. Traditions indeed is a matter of such import-
ance, as if you may be allowed whatsoever you will tlirust
upon us under the name of unwritten traditions, the written
word of God shall serve to no purpose at all. For first,
as you plainly profess, the holy scripture shall not be ac-
counted sufficient to teach all truth necessary to salvation,
that the man of God may be perfect, prepared to all good
works. Secondly, with the Valentinian heretics, you accuse
the scriptures of uncertain understanding without your tra-
ditions ; under pretence of which you will bring in what
you hst, though it be never so contrary to the holy scrip-
ture's plain words, by colour of interpretation, as you do the
worshipping of images, and many other hke heresies. As
for the mention that is made of apostolical traditions in
divers of the ancient fathers, some of them are such as you
yourselves observe not, and not for the tenth part of those
that you observe can you bring any testimony out of the
II ] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 165
ancient fathers ; as is proved sufficiently by so many propo-
sitions as were set down by the bishop of Salisbury, M.
Jewel, whereof you can bring no proof for any one to have
been taught within 600 years after Christ. Now concern-
ing the traditions of the apostles, what they were, who can
be a better witness unto us than Ignatius, the disciple of the
apostles, of whom Eusebius writeth, that when he was led
towards Rome, where he suffered martyrdom, he earnestly
exhorted the churches by which he passed, to continue in
the faith, and against all heresies, which even then began
to bud up, he charged them to retain fast the tradition of
the apostles, which by that time he protested to be com-
mitted to writing ; for by that time were all the books of
the new testament written. The words of Eusebius concern-
ing tliis matter are, Lib. iii. cap. 35 : Trpovrperre re aTrpl^
ej^ecrOai t^s twi' airoaroXwu irapaooaew^, r)v virep aacbaXeias
Kai eyypaCpo)^ rjori luapTvpo/iefo^ ciaTvirovaOai avaynaiov
tjyelro. " And he exhorted them straitly to keep the tra-
dition of the apostles, which, testifying that it was now for
assurance committed to writing, he thought necessary to be
plainly taught." Against tliis tradition of the apostles, which
for certainty and assurance is contained in their holy and un-
doubted writings, we say nothing, but strive altogether for it.
But because the word "traditions" is by you papists taken to
signify a doctrine secretly delivered by word of mouth, with-
out authority of the holy scriptures, we do willingly avoid
the word in our translations, where the simple might be
deceived, to think that the Holy Ghost did ever commend
any such to the church, which he would not have to be com-
mitted to writing in the holy scriptures ; and instead of that
word so commonly taken, although it doth not necessarily
signify any such matters, we do use such words as do truly
express the apostle's meaning, and the Greek word doth also
signify. Therefore we use the words of "ordinances," or "in-
structions," or "institutions," or "the doctrine deHvered," all
which, being of one sense, the Greek word irapd^ocn^ doth
signify, and the same doth "tradition" signify, if it be rightly
understood : but seeing it hath been commonly taken, and is
urged of the papists to signify only a doctrine dehvered
beside the word of God written, in such places where the
Holy Ghost useth the Greek word TrapdSoai^ in that sense,
166 A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH [cH.
we translate by that word " tradition ;" where he useth it for
such doctrine as is grounded upon the holy scriptures, our
translators have avoided it, not of any heretical meaning,
that all irapaSocrei?, "traditions," are naught, but that all such
as have not the holy scripture to testify of them, and to war-
rant them, are evil, and to be avoided of all true Christians;
which cannot without blasphemy acknowledge any imper-
fection in the holy scriptures of God, which are able to make
a man wise unto salvation, if they should think any doctrine
necessary to salvation not to be contained therein.
Martin, 2. Martin. For example. Matt. XV.', thus they translate, "Why do thy
vapaSocTLv. disciples transgress the tradition of the elders V And again, " Why do
you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition V And
again, " Thus have you made the commandment of God of no effect
by your tradition." Here, I warrant you, all the bells sound " tradition,"
and the word is never omitted ; and it is very well and honestly trans-
SThes^ii. 15. lated, for so the Greek word doth properly signify. But now on the
o-ejs, other side, concerning good traditions, let us see their dealing. The
traditiones. apostle by the selfsame words, both in Greek and Latin, saith thus :
" Therefore, brethren, stand and hold fast the traditions which you have
learned either by word, or by our epistle^." And again, "Withdraw
2 Thess. iii. 6. yourselves from every brother walking inordinately, and not according
to the tradition which they have received of us ^." And again, according
1 Cor. xi. 2. to the Greek which they profess to follow : " I praise you, brethren,
P Atari ol ^udrjTai aov rrapa^aivovtri ttjv Trapahoaiv twv Trpea-
^vrepcov; Matt. XV. 2.]
[2 Kat Kparfire ras TrapaSoa-eis as ebiMxOrjTf. 2 Thess. ii. 15.
"Tenete traditiones quas didicistis," Vulg. "Tenete traditam doctri-
nam, quam edocti estis," Beza.
"Hold ye the traditions that ye have learned," Wiclif. " Keep
the ordinances which ye have learned," Tyndale, Cranmer. "Keep
the instructions which ye have learned," Geneva. "Hold the tradi-
tions which you have learned," Rheims. "Hold the traditions which
you have been taught," Authorised version.]
P Kai pfj Kara rrjv irapa^ocriv rjv TrapeKa^ov Trap' i]pS)V, 2 Thess. iii. 6.
"Et non secundum traditionem quam accepemnt a nobis," Vulg. "Et
non ex tradita doctrina quam accepit a nobis," Beza.
"And not after the teaching that they received of us," Wiclif.
" And not after the institution which he received of us," Tyndale,
Cranmer. "And not after the instruction which he received of us,'
Geneva. "Not according to the tradition which they have received
of us," Rheims. "Not after the tradition which he received of us,"
Authorised version.]
11.] TRANSLATIONS OP THE BIBLE. 167
that in all things you are mindful of me, and as I have delivered unto /caOws
you, you keep my traditions \" . ZT^^p"'-
Fulke. No marvel, though you cannot avoid the bells "^vi^^^^
sounding against man's traditions ; which sound must needs
pierce your conscience more than it offendeth your ears,
seeing you know that many of those things which you defend
under the name of traditions, against the holy scriptures,
have not God for their author, which forbiddeth to be wor-
shipped in such sort, but man, or rather Satan, which hath
inspired such things unto men, thereby to dishonour God,
and to discredit his holy and most certain written word. Yet
you say it is well and honestly translated. God knoweth
how fain you would there were no such text extant in the
gospel against your superstition and will-worsliipping. But
now let us see our crafty dealing (as you count it) against
good traditions. In the first text, 2 Thess. ii. 15, you may
see your understanding of traditions quite overthrown. For
the apostle speaketh of such traditions as were delivered to
them partly by preaching, and partly by his epistle. There-
fore tradition doth not signify a doctrine delivered by word
of mouth only. But yet you will say it signifieth here a
doctrine dehvered by word of mouth also, which is not writ-
ten. How prove you that? because all that the apostle
preached was not contained in his epistles to the Thessa-
lonians, therefore was it nowhere written in the scriptures?
What the tradition was in the second text, 2 Thess. iii. 6, is
expressed by and by after: "that he which will not labour
must not eat." Was this doctrine never written before?
when God commandeth every man to labour in his vocation.
As for the third place, 1 Cor. xi. 2, your own vulgar Latin
translator both teacheth us how to translate it, and also dis-
chargeth our translation of heresy and corruption; for he
calleth irapd^ocrei^ in that place, " prcecepta^," precepts, or
instructions, or commandments, or ordinances: I see no great
difference in these words. By which his translation he
sheweth, that in the other places, 2 Thess. ii. and iii., he
meaneth the same tiling by traditiones, "traditions," that we
r* 'ETratrS be Vfias, aSeXf^ot, on navra fiov jiffivrjade, Koi Kadcos
irapf8(0Ka v[xiv, ras napadocreis KaT€)(eTe. 1 Cor. xi. 2.3
[^ "Et sicut tradidi vobis, priecepta mea tenete," Vulg.]
168 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH:
do by "ordinances" or "instructions", and might as well have
used the word prwcepta in those two places, as he did in
this one, if it had pleased him.
]Martin,3. Martin. Here we see plain mention of St Paul's traditions, and
consequently of apostolical traditions, yea, and traditions by word of
mouth, delivered to the churches without writing or scripture. In all
which places look, gentle reader, and seek all their English translations,
YetM. Fuike and tliou shalt not once find the word "tradition," but instead thereof,
found there, " Ordinances," " instructions,'' "preachings," "institutions," and any word
a"wnst ' else rather than "tradition," Insomuch that Beza, their master, trans-
Ko^ke"^^lf lateth it " traditam doctrinam," " the doctrine delivered," putting the
he give not singular number for the plural, and adding " doctrine" of his own : so
stance, let framing the text of holy scripture according to liis false commentary, or
himself the rather putting his commentary in the text, and making it the text of
2 Thess. ii. scripture. Who would think their malice and partiality against tradi-
^apaoo- tions were so great, that they should all agree with one consent so duly
o-eis. and exactly in these and these places to conceal the word, which in other
places do so gladly use it, the Greek word being all one in all the said
places ?
FuLKEj 3. Fulke. There is no question but the apostles by word
of mouth, that is, by preaching and teaching, dehvered the
doctrine of the gospel to the churches; but that they preached,
taught, or dehvered any doctrine as necessary to salvation,
which they proved not out of the holy scriptures, and which
is not contained in the new testament or the old, this is
not yet proved, neither ever can it be proved. Such matters
of ceremonies, order, and discipline, which are mutable, no
man denies but they might and did deliver ; but yet in
them nothing but agreeable to the general rules set down
in the scripture. But in all these places the word " tradi-
tion" cannot once be found. Yet M. Fulke saith it is found.
Yea, doth ? where saith he so ? You answer, p. 153,
against D. Saunders' Rocke. Therefore, if he give not an
instance, let liim give himself the He. But he that chargeth
Fulke to say it is found, heth the more. For so he saith
not : read the place who will. He speaketh against Saunders,
who affirmed that the very name of "tradition" used in the
better part, cannot be suffered to be in the Enghsh bible,
as though there were some decree of the synod, or act of
parliament against it ; and saith, it may be and is suffered
in that sense which the Holy Ghost useth it, but not to
U.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 169
bring prayer for the dead, or any thing contrary to the
scripture under the name of traditions apostohc. By which
words I mean, that there is no prohibition or edict to the
contrary, but if any man will use the word tradition in trans-
lation of the Bible, he is permitted so to do: I do not affirm
it is so found. But as if I should say. The papists in
England are suffered to hve as becometh good subjects, I
affirm not that they are, or shall be found so to live. But
to omit tliis foohsh quarrel, Beza our master is said to have
translated Trapd^oaei'i, "the doctrme dehvered," putting the
singular number for the plural, and adding " doctrine" of his
own. What an heinous matter here is! The word "doctrine"
is a collective, comprehending many precepts or traditions ;
and in the next chapter the apostle useth the same word in
the singular number. Again, the 1 Thess. iv. 2, he calleth the
same TrapayyeXiw, "precepts" or "documents," which word
signifieth the same that irapa^oaei's : witness your vulgar Latin
translator, which gives one word for both, prwcepta, 1 Cor. xi.
and 1 Thess. iv. And that the word doctrine is added to
the text, it is a fond cavil : for the word doctrine is con-
tained in Trapa^oai^, which signifieth a "dehvery ;" but where-
of, if not of doctrine ? Our Saviour Christ also, Matt. xv. 9,
by the testimony of Esay reproveth the tradition of the
Pharisees, " teaching the doctrines precepts of men ;" which
testimony of Esay could take no hold of them, if traditions
were not doctrines and precepts. So that in this transla-
tion of Beza (cry out as loud as you can) there is neither
fraud nor corruption, mahce nor partiahty ; but a prudent
dechning of that term, wliich might give occasion of error,
and the apostle's meaning truly and faithfully dehvered. To
shew that one word may be diversely translated, especially
when it signifieth divers things, to wise men is needless,
I have said before, you yourselves translate, (or else you
should be taken for madmen,) the Latin word tradere, of
which tradition is derived, sometimes "to dehver," sometimes
"to betray," and yet the Greek and Latin word bemg all
one in all the said places.
Martin. Yea, they do elsewhere so gladly use this word, Martin, 4.
"tradition," when it may tend to the discredit thereof, that they
put the said word in all their English bibles, with the like full con-
170 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
Col. ii. 10. sent as before, when it is not in the Greek at all : as when they
Tlooyjxa- ^j.jjjjgijjtg ^j^yg « jf yg be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the
world, why, as though living m the world, are ye led with tra-
* Of the year ditionsI" and, as another English translation* of theirs readeth more
heretically, " Why are ye burdened with traditions ?" Tell us sincerely,
you that profess to have skill in the Greek, and to translate according to
the Greek ; tell us, we beseech you, whether this Greek word Soy/Lta
Col. ii. 24. do signify " tradition," and BoyfiaTi^ea-daL " to be led or burdened with
ooy/uao-ii'. traditions." You cannot be ignorant that it doth not so signify ; but as a
iv 66y- jj^jig before in the same chapter, and in other places, yourselves translate
Soynara, "ordinances," " decrees,' so tl BoyfiaTi^fcrde must be (as m the
vulgar Latin it is) quid decernitis '^ Why do you "ordain, " or " decree,"
or, " why are you led with decrees ?"
FuLifE, 4. Fulke. It grieveth you that tradition should be men-
tioned in the ill part as it is. And it seemeth you would
defend the Colossians against St Paul, who reproveth them
because they were led by ordinances according to the " pre-
cepts and doctrines of men." But you seem to make hght
of such traditions, and therefore you count that the more
heretical translation, which saith, " why are you burdened
with traditions?" Wlierefore, I pray you, is that more
heretical ? Do you not think that such traditions as are the
commandments and doctrines of men, are burdensome to men's
consciences ? But they that have skill in the Greek tongue
must tell you sincerely, whether tliis word ^oyina doth signify
" tradition," and ^oynaTiXeaQai " to be led or burdened
with traditions," I answer you, if ^oyfxaTa, as you confess,
signify "ordinances" and "decrees" or "doctrines," and the
word tradition signifieth the same, why should not ^oyiua-
ritecrOai " to be led or burdened with traditions," as well as
Avith ordinances, customs, or decrees? These words differ
much in sound, but not greatly in signification. Dogmata
P In the original, ti ws C^vres iv Koa-fia boyfiari^eade ; in Tyn-
dale's version, 1534, " Why, as though ye yet lived in the world, are
ye led with traditions of them that say — " Cranmer's version 1539,
and the Bishops' bible, " Why, as though ye yet lived in the world,
are ye led with traditions?" The Geneva version, 1557, "Wherefore,
if ye be dead with Christ and are free from the ordinances of the
Avorld, why, as though ye yet lived in the world, are ye burdened with
traditions?" In the Authorised version, "Why, as though living in
the world, are ye subject to ordinances ?"J
II.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. I7l
Pythagorea, that might never be put in writing, what were
they but the traditions of Pythagoras? Such were the
philosophical decrees called Soynara, whereof TuUy speaketh
in his book De jinihus, which were dictata, taught by
word of mouth, wliich to set forth among them was coimted
an heinous offence : might not those rightly be called tra-
ditions ?
Martin. Justify your translation, if you can, either out of scriptures, Martin, 5.
fathers, or lexicon. And make us a good reason why you put the word
" traditions" here, where it is not in the Greek ; and would not put it
in tlie places before, where you know it is most evidently in the Greek.
Yea, you must tell us why you translate for tradition, " ordinance," and irapa^ocrii
contrary for ordinance, "tradition ;" so turning cat in pan (as they say) late^-'ordi-
at your pleasure, and wresting both the one and the other to one end, l^^yf^a, ^^^
that you may make the very name of traditions odious among the "^ tradition :"
people, be they never so authentical, even from the apostles, which your trary.
conscience knoweth, and you shall answer for it at the dreadful day.
Fulke. First, out of scripture I justify it thus : those Fulke, 5.
dogmata, against which the apostle writeth, were according
to the precepts and doctrines of men : but such the scripture
caUeth traditions, Matt. xv. Therefore these were traditions.
Secondly, out of the fathers : Chrysostom^ upon this place
saith, Traditiones Grcecorum taxat, he reproveth the tra-
ditions of the Greeks, saying, all is but a human doctrine.
Secondly, St Ambrose^ upon tliis text ; "Love not the world,"
^ IIws Se ov Koa-fiov Traparrjpria-ftTi; Koi opa ttws avToiis Kcofia)8e7,
[xrj 6lyr}S, p-Tf a\jn], /lit) yevcrj], cos peyaKoDV rivav air^xop-^vovs' a eVrt
TTcivTa els (pdopav tji aTTO)(pi]aei. KadelXe rav TToXkatv ttjv (fivcrlcixriVj
KOL eTTijyaye' Kara to. eVraX/xara /cat ScBaaKoXias rmv avSprnwutv. tl
Xe'yeis ; Kav Tov vopov e'nrrjs, \017r6v diSacTKaXia (crrlv avOpcairov peTa
Tov Kaipov. 1] on irapiTroiovv avrov, ovras emfv, 7/ rot tcop 'EXXt/j/qjj/
cilviTTfTai' oXov avdpainvov to hoypa ea-ri, (fyrjaiv. Chrysost. in Epist.
ad Coloss. cap. ii. Horn. vii. Opera, Vol. xi. p. 372. edit. Benedict.]
[^ Nolite, inquit, diligere mundum, neque ea quce in mundo sunt;
id est, neque elementa, quibus compactus est mundus, neque errores
quos humana adinvenit traditio, deligamus; sed solum Christum qui
mortuus est pro nobis. Ambros. Comment, in Epist. ad Coloss. ii. 2.
Opera, Vol. 11. p. 270. Sagina enim carnalis sensus traditio humana
est...Hinc enim aggravati non poterant sursum jungi capiti suo. p. 271.
(super V. 23.)]]
172 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
saith he, " nor those errors quos humana adinvenit traditio,
" which the tradition of men hath invented." And afterward,
Sagina enim carnalis sensics humana traditio est: "For
the tradition of man is the pampering of carnal sense ; by
which, he saith, men are so burdened, that they cannot be
joined to the head which is above." Yet " bm-dening with
traditions" is called of you the more heretical translation.
Say as much to Ambrose, that he maketh an heretical com-
mentary. The interpreter of Theodoret, printed at Collen,
1573, hath translated in the very text, for ^t^acr/caXtas,
"traditioneshominum," "traditions of men." You see now, this
matter is not so void of testimony of the fathers, as you sup-
posed. The reason you require us to make, is made often
before. We thought it not meet to express the Greek word
in both places by the same English word, because the
Enghsh word, as it is used by you, is not so indifferent, to
signify the doctrine of God dehvered out of the scriptures,
as to signify doctrines of men devised beside the scriptures.
K we must answer why we call tradition " ordinance," and
ordinance " tradition ; " let your vulgar Latin interpreter an-
swer us, or you for him, why he calleth tradition " precept,"
and usage or precept "tradition"? The one he doth 1 Cor.
xi. 2, the other Acts vi. 14, where the Greek is eO^, signify-
ing there " precepts," or " observations commanded," he trans-
lateth traditiones, as in the other place the Greek being
Trapa^daei^ he translateth " proicepta." If tliis be lawful for
him, why should it be counted corruption or false trans-
lation in us? seeing we are moved with as good reason
as can be yielded for him. As for authentical and apos-
tolical traditions, that are grounded upon the doctrine of the
apostles expressed in their writings, we shall be ready to
receive them, whensoever they shall be brought forth. If
they cannot be proved by the scriptures, which are "written
that we might beheve, and beheving have eternal life," and
" which are able to make us wise unto salvation," we have
nothing to do with them : we may well spare them : nay,
we dare not admit them, lest we should answer for blas-
phemy against the holy scriptures in that di^eadful day, if
by admitting of such traditions we should profess, that the
doctrine contained in the holy scriptures is unperfect or
insufficient to salvation.
II.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 173
Martin. Somewhat more excusable it is, but yet proceeding of the Martin, 6.
same heretical humour, and on your part (that should exactly follow the
Greek) falsely translated, when you translate in St Peter's epistle thus :
" You were not redeemed with corruptible things from your vain con- i Pet. i. is.
versation received by the tradition of the fathers." Where the Greek is t»c ■t)7s ixa-
thus rather to be translated, "from your vain conversation delivered by T"'-" .
the fathers." But your fingers itched to foist in the word "tradition," o-rpot^f/s
and for "delivered" to say "received," because it is the phrase of the '^"■JP"'^"--
paooTov.
catholic church, that it hath " received " many things " by tradition,"
which you would here controul by likeness of words in this false trans-
lation.
Fulke. I marvel why you should count it an heretical Fulke, 0.
humour, to use the word "traditions" in the evil part, which
the Holy Ghost so useth, and your own vulgar translator
also ; but that you are more partial in allowing the tra-
ditions of men, than we in avoiding the term sometimes,
only for doubt lest traditions of men should creep into the
place of God's commandments. But how is it falsely trans-
lated on our part, that profess to follow the Greek, which
is truly translated in your vulgar Latin text, which pro-
fesseth to translate the Greek as well as we? Belike, be-
cause we say, "received by the tradition of the fathers," which
according to the Greek should be, " delivered by the fathers,"
but that our fingers itched to foist in the word " tradition."
What, I pray you, hath your vulgar translator foisted in
that word? did liis fingers itch against such catholic phrases,
that he would controul them by a false translation ? Do you
not perceive that wMle you rail upon us, you revile your
own vulgar Latin translation, wliich hath the same word
" tradition," for wliich you storm against us ? But for de-
livered, we have said, received. See whither frowardness
di'iveth you : the apostle saith, " they were dehvered from
the vain conversation of their fathers' tradition." Do you
then understand, that it was delivered by the fathers, but
not received by their sons? Certainly they were dehvered
from that vain conversation which they had received. For
receiving doth necessarily import dehvering. And because
you called for a lexicon in the next section before, Scapula
will teach you, that iraTpowapa^oTo^ doth signify as in-
differently a patre traditus as a patre acceptus, " dehvered
by the father," and " received by the father." What wranghng
then is this, about the moon-shine in the water, to cry
174 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
out "false translation," "foisting," "itching fingers," and I
know not what?
Martin, 7. Martin. But concerning the word "tradition," you will say perhaps
the sense thereof is included in the Greek word, "delivered." We
grant. But would you be content, if we should always expressly add,
Tradidi " tradition," where it is so included 1 Then should we say, 1 Cor. xi. 2,
'jrat>touiKa. « j pj,jjjgg yQ^ ^}^q^ ^g J have delivered you (by tradition), you keep
my precepts," or " traditions." And again, v. 23 : " For I received of
our Lord, which also I delivered unto you," (by tradition,) &c. And
Luke i. 2: "As they (by tradition) delivered unto us, which from
the beginning saw," &c., and such like, by your example, we should
translate in this sort. But we use not this licentious manner in trans-
lating holy scriptures ; neither is it a translator's part, but an inter-
preter's, and his that maketh a commentary ; neither doth a good cause
need other translation than the express text of the scripture giveth.
FuLKE, 7. Fulke. We will say it is contained in the Greek woi'd
waTpoirapa^oTou, which signifieth "received hy tradition or
delivery from the fathers," and not in the verb Trapa^iSwfxi,
wliich signifieth otherwise many times, than simply "to de-
Hver ;" and when it signifieth " to dehver," it doth not alway
signify to dehver by word of mouth, without writing, as
you understand tradition, but as well by writing, as by
preacliing. As when St Paul saith, " I received of the Lord
that which I delivered unto you," speaking of the institution
of the supper, he meaneth that which the evangelists had
written, and he himself doth write. So 2 Thess. ii., when
he willeth them to hold the traditions which they had
learned of liim, he speaketh not only of such as they learned
by his preaching, but such also as they learned by his
epistle. Wherefore if you should expressly add the word
"tradition" in yom' partial signification, wheresoever you find
the word delivered, you should not only translate ridiculously,
but also heretically and falsely. Words in derivation and
composition do not always signify according to their pri-
mitive.
JMartin, 8, Martin. And if you will yet say, that our vulgar Latin translation
hath here the word, " tradition," we grant it hath so, and therefore we
also translate accordingly. But you profess to translate the Greek, and
not the vulgar Latin, which you in England condemn as papistical, and
say it is the worst of all, though Bcza, your master, pronounce it to be
11.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 175
the very best"; and will you, notwithstanding, follow the said vulgar Discover of
Latin, rather than the Greek, to make ti-aditions odious ? Yea, such is pag. 147. '
your partiality one way, and inconstancy another way, that for your Nwum Test,
heretical purpose you are content to follow the old Latin translation, ^^^'
though it differ from the Greek ; and again, another time you will not
follow it, though it be all one with the Greek most exactly ; as in the
place before alleged, where the vulgar Latin translation hath nothing of
traditions, but, " Quid decernitis," as it is in the Greek, you translate,
" Why are ye burdened with traditions 1" Coi. ii. 20.
Fulke. You may be sure we will say that we know Fulke, 8.
to be true, and sufficient to discharge oui' translation from
your foohsh and malicious quarrelhng. But we profess (you
say) to translate the Greek, and not the vulgar Latin. And,
I pray you, what doth your vulgar Latin interpreter pro-
fess to translate, but the Greek ? If he then, translating out of
Greek, could find "tradition" in the Greek word, why should
not we find the same, especially being admonished by liim ?
who if he translated truly, why are we blamed for doing
P Beza's opinion was not quite what Martin has here represented
it. In the preface alluded to, he says as follows: "Vulgata" illius
editionis, qua jampridem utimur, quis auctor fuerit, video inter doctos
homines non constare. Hoc quidem constat, prseterquam quod pluri-
mis locis a librariis est depravata, saepe illam a Graecis discedere, ssepe
obscure multa interpretari, quaedam praetermittere, quaedam adjicere;
ut minime mu-um sit, eruditis hominibus nunquam satisfecisse, impe-
ritis autem multis magnos errores objecisse. Eruditos voco, non eos
duntaxat qui praecipue hoc nomine digni sunt, quales sane perpauci
semper extiterunt; sed eos quoque qui vel mediocrem utriusque lin-
guae peritiam ad pietatis cognitionem attulerunt. Ceteros autem, quod
ad id attinet de quo agimus, nihil moror; quorum tamen duo genera
esse video : unum eorum qui per imperitiam, quod pleraque errata
non modo non intelligunt, sed ne suspicari quidem possunt, idcirco in
recepta ilia intei"pretatione acquiescunt ; qui tamen proculdubio meliora
amplecterentur, siquis ilia commonstraret : alterum eorum qui, perverso
quodam ingenio et ignobUi natura praediti, ita in crassis illis et ob-
scuris teuebris versantur, ut veritatis lucem sponte refugiant. lUi com-
miseratione sane aliqua digni sunt: isti vero plane indigni quorum
corruptis et depravatis judiciis quisquam commoveatur ; quinimo
aperti sunt veritatis hostes; mirus enim est inter mendacium et i<mo-
rantiam, qua isti tantopere delectantur, consensus Quum io-itur
in ilia Vulgata editione (quam tamen ego maxima ex parte amplector,
et ceteris omnibus antepono) permulta requirantur, laudandus est
profecto eorum labor qui illam emendare studuerunt. Praefatio in
Nov. Test. edit. Bezae, 1556.]
176 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
as he did ? if his translation be false, why is it allowed
as the only authentical text ? We follow not, therefore, the
Latin translation, but join with it wheresoever it followeth
the Greek, as we do in ten thousand places more than
this ; and willingly depart not from it, but where it de-
parteth from the Greek, or else useth such words as would
be offensive, if they were translated into Enghsh, or occa-
sion of error ; as you do likewise, when you depart from
the proper and usual signification of words, which your
Latin translator useth : as when you call fcenerator, "a cre-
ditor," which signifieth an usurer, Luke vii. ; stabulum, " an
inn," and stabularius, "an host," Luke x.; una sahhati, "the
first of the sabbath," Johnii. ; ecclesia, "the assembly," Acts
vii.; 6ap^iVmato, "washings," Mark vii., and such like.
But we in England (say you) condemn the Latin trans-
lation, as papistical. We accuse it as not true in many places,
and we say it is the worst of all, though Beza, our master,
pronounce it to be the very best. This toucheth me some-
what; for in the margm is noted "Discovery of the Rock,
p. 147." where, indeed, speaking of the Hebrew text of the
Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, the Greek trans-
lation of the Septuagmt, and the common Latin translation, I
say the Tridentine Council alloweth none for authentical, but
the common Latin translation, that is the worst of all. Now
what saith Beza contrary to this ? Speaking of the divers
Latin translations of the New Testament only, he saith of
the vulgar Latin, that he followeth it for the most part,
and preferreth it before all the rest : maxima ex parte am,-
plector, et cete^^is omnibus antepono. So that I speak of
the whole Bible, Beza of the New Testament only : I speak
of the vulgar Latin text, in comparison of the original He-
brew and Greek, and the Septuagint's translation ; Beza,
of the Latin translation of the New Testament, in comparison
of all other Latin translations, that were before him, as
Erasmus, Castalio, and such like. According to your old
manner therefore, you rehearse out of my writings, either
falsifying the words, or perverting the meaning. These
things considered, you have no cause to accuse us of par-
tiality and inconstancy, for .following or leaving your Latin
text, wliich we never did but upon good ground and reason
sufficient.
II.] TRANSLATIONS OP THE BIBLE. 177
Martin. So that a blind man may see you frame your translations Martin, 9.
to bolster your errors and heresies, without all respect of following
sincerely either the Greek or the Latin. But for the Latin no marvel ;
the Greek at the least why do you not follow ? Is it the Greek that
induceth you to say ordinances for traditions, traditions for decrees, "^apa-
ordinances for justifications, elder for priest, grave for hell, image for s^yua'-ra.
idol? Tell us before God, and in your conscience, whether it be because SiKutui-
you will exactly follow the Greek : nay, tell us truly, and shame the !^"g"«^.
devil, whether the Greek words do not sound and signify most properly -repo's.
that which you of purpose will not translate, for disadvantaging your ".?,''^l
heresies ? And first, let us see concerning the question of images.
Fulke. A blind man may see, that you cavil and slan- Fulke, 9.
der, quarrel and rail, without respect either of conscience
towards God, or honesty toward the world : insomuch, that
most commonly you forget the credit of your own vulgar
Latin translation, so you may have a colour to find fault
with ours. And yet again you ask, whether it be the Greek
which induceth us to say, for irapaooaei'i ordinances, and
for Soyfxara traditions, &c. I tell you, the Greek alloweth
us so to say, wliich is sufficient, when other godly causes
move us beside so to translate. Is it the Latin that in- Fanerator.
Stabulum.
duceth you to say, for 'an usurer,' ' a creditor; for 'a stable,' ^""fy^*^'"""'
'an inn;' for 'what was done,' 'what was chanced^;' for ' fas- ;^^^sentes,
tening to,' 'crucifying";' for 'be you saved,' 'save yom'selves^;' Act?ii!'"''
for 'creature,' 'creation;' for 'confessed,' 'promised*;' for 'aA^tfyn"^'
boat,' 'a ship;' for 'a ship,' 'a boat ;' for 'singing,' 'piping^;' Lukl'"".*^'
Q^ Acts v. 7. I^ot ?7 yvvi) avTov firj eiSvIa to yeyovos etarjXdev.
" Et uxor ipsius, nesciens quod factum fuerat," Vulg. " And his
wife not knowing what was chaunced," Rhemish version.]
P Acts ii, 23. Sta ;^etpa)i/ avojiav npoa-Tni^avTes dveiXere. "Per
manus iniquorum affligentes interemistis," Vulg. " You by the hands
of wicked men have crucified and slain," Rhemish version. "Have
crucified and slain," Versions 1534, 1539, 1557, 1611.]
[I** Acts ii. 40. ^codrjTe dno rfjs yeveas ttjs (TKoXias ravrq's. " Sal-
vamini a generatione ista prava," Vulg. "Save yourselves from this
perverse generation," Rhemish version.]
[^ Acts vii. 17. Kada>s 8e rjyyiC^v 6 xpo^os rijs e-n-ayyfXlas ^s c!>ixo(T(v
6 eeoff Tw A^padji. "Cum autem appropinquaret tempus promis-
sionis, quam confessus erat Deus Abrahae," Vulg. "And when the
time drew near of the promise which God had promised to Abra-
ham, &c." Rhemish translation.]
Q® Matt. xi. 17. HvX-qa-afiev vfjuv, Koi ovk dpxwacrde. "Cecinimus
vobis, et non saltastis," Vulg. "We have piped to you, and you
have not danced," Rhemish version.]
r 1 12
Lfulke.J
178
A DEFKNCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
Navis,
Alark iv.
fecinimus,
Matt. xi.
Foenum,
Matt. xiv.
Refeetio,
Mark xiv.
Insipientia,
Luke vi.
Simula-
crum.
for 'hay,' 'grass';' for 'refection,' 'refectory^;' for 'foolish-
ness,' 'madness^;' for 'an image,' 'an idol,' &c. ? I blame
not all these as false translations; yet every man may see
they are neither usual nor proper : yet as for some of these
(though not for all) I know you may give good reason, so
may we, for any shew of alteration or departing from the
usual signification of the Greek word, that you are able to
allege against us.
P Matt. xiv. 19. 'AvaK\i6iivai eVl roiis x^P'rovs. '•^ Discumbere su-
per foenum," Vulg. " To sit down upon the grass," Rhemish
version.]
[^ Mark xiv. 14. Hoi) eWi t6 KaraXvfia; "Ubi est refeetio mea?"
Vulg. " Where is my refectory 1" Rhemish version.]
[** Luke vi. 11. 'EnXriadrja-av dvoias. "Repleti sunt insipientia,"
Vulg. " And they were replenished with madness," Rhemish version.]
III.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 179
CHAPTER III.
Heretical Translation ag-ainst Sacred Imao-es.
Martin. I beseech you, what is the next and readiest and most proper Martin, 1.
English of idolum, idololatra, idololatria ? is it not, " idol, idolater, e'iowXov.
idolatry"? Are not these plain English words, and well known in our '^'""''^O'^"-
language? Why sought you further for other temis and Avords, if you had eiowXoXa.
meant faithfully ? What needed that circumstance of three words for '^z'^'"-
one, " worshipper of images," and " worshipping of images'* " ? Whether, Bib. 1577.
I pray you, is the more natural and convenient speech, either in our
English tongue, or for the truth of the thing, to say, as the holy scripture
doth, " covetousness is idolatry," and consequently, " the covetous man Eph. v.
is an idolater ;" or, as you translate, " covetousness is worshipping of ° ' ""'
images," and, " the covetous man is a worshipper of images "1
Fulke. If you ask for the readiest and most proper Fulke, 1.
English of these words, I must needs answer you, ' an image,
a worshipper of images, and worshippmg of images,' as we
have sometimes translated. The other that you would have,
' idol, idolater, and idolatry,' be rather Greeldsh than EngUsh
words; which though they be used of many Enghshmen,
yet are they not understood of all, as the other be. And
therefore I say, the more natural and convenient speech
for our Enghsli tongue, and as convenient for the truth of
the thing, it is to say, ' covetousness is the worsliipping of
images, and the covetous man is a worshipper of images,'
as to say, 'covetousness is idolatry, and the covetous man
is an idolater,' as I have proved before ; seeing idolum by
your own interpreter is called simulacrum, and simula-
crum signifieth as much as imago, an image, cap. i. numb. 5.
Martin. We say commonly in English, Such a rich man maketh Martin, 2.
his money his god; and the apostle saith in like manner of some, Theabsur-
" whose belly is their god," Phil. iii. ; and generally eveiy creature is translation,
our idol, when we esteem it so exceedingly that we make it our god. man is a wor-
But who ever heard in English, that our money, or belly, were ourimTge?."
[* The versions of 1534 and 1539 render ^Vt? ia-riv elBaXoXarpela,
Col. iii. 5, " Which is worshipping of images." The Geneva transla-
tion has, like the Authorised version of 1611, "Which is idolatry."
The Vulgate has, " Qu^ est simulacronim servitus."]
12 2
180 A DEl'KNCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
images, and that by esteeming of them too much we become worshippers
of images ? Among yourselves are there not some even of your super-
intendents, of whom the apostle speaketh, that make an idol of their
money and belly, by covetousness and belly cheer ? Yet can we not call
you therefore in any true sense, '"' worshippers of images," neither would
you abide it. You see then, that there is a great difference betwixt idol
and image, idolatry and worshipping of images ; and even so great
difference is there betwixt St Paul's words and your translation.
FuLKE, 2. Fulke. Before you can shew that absurdity of this
translation, ' a covetous man is a worshipper of images,' you
must defend your own vulgar Latin translation, which calleth
el^coXoXarpeia simulacrorum servitus, which I have proved to
signify the serving or worshipping of images, cap. i. numb. 5.
Now to our English phrase, ' a rich man maketh his money
his god, a glutton his belly,' and so of other creatures
honoured above measure ; I say, the worshipping of images
may be after two sorts, either when they are worshipped as
gods, (as among the grosser sort of the gentiles and papists,)
and then it is against the first commandment, "Thou shalt
have none other gods but me"; or else Avlien men pretend to
worship God by them, as the Israehtes did in the calf,
Exod. xxxii., and in Jeroboam's calves, and in the brasen
serpent, and the wiser sort of the gentiles and papists pretend
to do in worsliipping their images ; and then it is a sin
against the second commandment, "Thou shalt make to thy-
self no graven images : thou shalt not fall down to them,
nor worship them." By similitude therefore of them that
trusted in images as their gods, and so honoured them which
were not able to help them, the apostle calleth the covetous
man a worshipper of images, and covetousness, worshipping of
images ; and not properly, but because their money is to
them the same occasion of departing from God, that the
images was to the worshipper of them. So if we will speak
unproperly, as the apostle saith, " their belly is their God," we
may say it is their idol, or their image, which they worship
as God : not that the belly, or any such thing, is God, or an
idol, or an image properly ; but that it is so termed, for that
to such vile creatures is given that divine honour which is due
to God, but by worshippers of idols and images is given to
idols or images. I confess the use of the English tongue, in
these speeches, is rather to call them idols than images, and
III.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 181
to extend the name idol (which is always taken in the evil
part) to that which the word image cannot so aptly signify :
yet in truth of the thing there is no difference between idol
and image, worshipping of idols, and worshipping of images,
whether you speak of such as be idols and images, so properly
called, or of such as be only by simiHtude figuratively so
named. If any of our superintendents be such as you speak
of, I wish them amended, or else removed. For my part, I
know none to be such, although I wish to the best increase of
God's grace, to despise the world, and to be more earnest in
setting forth God's glory. As for the great difference you
speak of betwixt St Paul's words and our translation, I see
none as yet.
Martin. Will you see more yet to this purpose? In the English Ma nnv, 3.
bible, printed the year 1562, you read thus : " How agreeth the temple 2 Cor. vi.
of God with images^ V Can we be ignorant of Satan's cogitations herein,
that it was translated of purpose to delude the simple people, and to
make them believe that the apostle speaketh against sacred images in
the churches, which were then in plucking down in England, when this
your translation was first published in print ? Whereas in very truth
you know, that the apostle here partly interpreteth himself to speak of
men as of God's temples wherein he dwelleth, partly alludeth to Salo-
mon's temple, which did very well agree -vAith images (for it had the Salomon's
cherubins, which were the representations of angels, and the figures of wen'agrVe
oxen to bear up the lavatory), but with idols it could not agree, and but' n^^wSi
therefore the apostle's words are these, " How agreeth the temple of God "'°'^"
with idols V
Fulke. We had need to see more, before we be con- Fulke, 8.
victed of corruption ; for hitherto we have seen nothing but a
fooUsh cavil, grounded upon the common use of the word "idol"
in English, in which speech it is taken only for unlawful
images, although in the Greek it signifieth as generally as
imago in Latin, and by Tully himself is used for the same.
But in the Enghsh bible, printed 1562, we read thus,
2 Cor. vi., " How agreeth the temple of God with images''^ ?"
Here you cannot be " ignorant of Satan's cogitations, that it
P Tt's be (TvyKaTciQecns va^ Beou fxera elhdikav ; 2 Cor. vi. 16.
"What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" Rhemish,
Authorised version.]
P It is "images" in the Bibles of 1584, 1589, 1557, but "idols"
in the Authorised version, 1611.]
182 A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH fcH.
was translated of purpose to make the simple people believe,
that the apostle speaketh against sacred images in chm'ches,
which were then in plucking down in England, when this
translation was first pubhshed in prmt." You are so cunning
in Satan's cogitations, that he hath inspired mto you a mani-
fest untruth ; for this text was so translated and printed near
tliirty years before 1562, in king Henry the Vlllth's time,
when images were not in plucking down. And when it was
printed again, 1562, which was the fifth year of her majesty's
reign (God be thanked ! ) there was no need to pluck down
images out of churches, which were plucked down in the first
and second years of her reign. AVherefore that purpose is
vainly imagined of you : for the translator's purpose was the
same that the apostle's, to shew that the religion of God
hath nothing to do with images made by man's device to
honour them as gods, or to honour God by them. And
where you say that the apostle " alludeth to Salomon's temple,
which did well agree with images, but not with idols ;" I
answer you, Salomon's temple cUd not agree with images
made by the device of man, to honour God by them or in
them. For the cherubins were not of man's device, but of
God's commandment : the oxen to hold up the lavatory, the
pomegranates, and other ornaments, were not for any use of
religion to worship God in them or by them, but for use and
garnishing of the house appointed by God in his law, and by
direction of his Spirit in Salomon. For the commandment,
"Thou shalt not make to thyself," is no restraint unto God, but
unto men of their own brain or private intent to make images
to serve in i-ehgion. Therefore the apostle, speaking of such
images as were forbidden by God's law, is not otherwise to be
understood ; and no more is our translation.
]\Iahtin, 4. Martin. When Moses by God's appointment erected a brasen
/xfT-a rSiv serpent, and commanded the people that were stung- with serpents to
Thebraseti t)ehold it, and thereby they were healed ; this was an image only, and as
an?magi^'^*' an image was it erected and kept and used by God's commandment.
and lawful: But when it grew to be an idol, saith St Augustine, that is, when the
afterward an ° ' o ■> j
idol, and people began to adore it as God, then king Ezechias brake it in pieces, to
unlawiul. x x tj ' o i. ^
Numb. xxi. the great commendation of his piety and godly zeal. So when the
Civil, e. 8. children of Israel, in the absence of INIo.ses, made a calf, and said, " These
Exod.°xxxii. ^re thy gods, O Israel, that brought thee out of Egypt," was it but an
image which they made ? was that so heinous a matter, that God would
III.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 183
SO have punished them as he did ? No, they made it an idol also, saying, The molten
" These are thy gods, O Israel ;" and therefore the apostle saith to the i^con ".'
Corinthians, "Be not idolaters, as some of them ;" which also you trans- f'0""\oA.«-
' " Tpai,
late most falsely, " Be not worsliippers of images, as some of them."
Fulke. The brasen serpent first and last was an image, Fulke, 4.
holy when it was commanded by God to be made as a sacra-
ment of our redemption by Clirist, lawful when it was reserved
only for memory of that excellent miracle ; unlawful, cursed,
and abominable, when it was worshipped, and therefore justly
broken in pieces by the godly king Ezechias. You cite Au-
gustine as it pleaseth you, to follow your own context :
Quern sane serpentem, projiter facti memoriam reservatum,
cum postea j^opuliis errans tanquam idolum colere ccepisset,
Ezechias, &c. "Which serpent truly, being reserved for the
memory of the fact, when afterward the people going astray
began to worship as an idol, Ezechias the king, serving God
with rehgious power, with great praise of his piety brake in
pieces." Here it is certain that Augustine, as most ecclesias-
tical writers, useth the word idolum for an image abused.
But that the people began to adore it as God, he saith not ;
for they only worshipped God by it, falsely indeed and super-
stitiously, but yet not believing that image to be God him-
self, but a holy representation of his power, which was shewed »
by it in the days of Moses. That Ezechias, by rehgious or
ecclesiastical power and authority, did put down idolatry, you
pass it by, as though you saw it not in St Augustine. But
you bring another example to prove that images, except they
be worsliipped as gods, be no idols. In truth, seeing all
rehgious worship is due only to God, although the idolaters
intend not to worship then* images as gods, yet by worsliip-
ping of them they make unto themselves gods of them, and
so offend both against the first and second commandments.
Yet how prove you that the Israelites made a god of their
calf ? Because they said, " These are thy gods, 0 Israel,
that brought thee out of the land of Egypt." But even by
that same speech it is manifest that they worshipped not the
calf, as believing it to be God; but contrariwise protested
thereby, that they meant not to change their God, but to
worship the same God, which brought them out of the land of
Egypt, by that image ; which they could not be ignorant that
it was made but yesterday of their ear-rings, and therefore
184 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
could not think it was the same God that brought them out of
the land of Egypt, but that they would worship God by that
visible shape, which they saw before them. And Aaron by
his proclamation confirmeth the same : " To-morrow," saith
he, " shall be holy day to Jehovah," that is, to the only true
God, whom they dishonoured, pretending to worship him by
that image : so heinous a thing it is to make images to repre-
sent God, and to worship them for his honour, although the
worshipper do not behove them to be gods. Therefore where
we have in some translations, 1 Cor. x., called those idolaters
worsliippers of images, we have not erred ; for an image it
was they worshipped, thinliing to worship God thereby.
But if either image or idol, worsliippers of images or idolaters,
would please you, we have both in our translations, the one
expressing what Ave mean by the other ; that these cavillations
were needless, but that malice against the truth incenseth you
to pick quarrels, and that translation which useth the terms of
idols and idolaters, was then in printing at Geneva, when
images were in pulling down in England, namely, the first and
second years of the queen's reign, being finished the 10th of
April, 1560 ; which notably confuteth the fond purpose, that
you slander our translators to have had.
Martin, 5. Martin. We see then that the Jews had images without sin, but
not idols. Again, for having idols they were accounted like unto the
Psai. cvi. gentiles, as the Psalm saith : " They learned their works, and served
their graven idols." But they were not accounted like unto the gentiles
for having images, which they had in Salomon's temple, and in the
In cap. XXV. l)rasen serpent. St Jerome writeth of the Ammonites and Moabites
The protest- (who were gentiles and idolaters), that coming into the temple of Jeru-
to the Am-'' salem, and seeing the angelical images of the cherubins covering the
Moabites™ propitiatory, they said, " Lo, even as the gentiles, so Juda also hath idols
of their religion." These men did put no difference between their own
idols and the Jews' lawful images. And are not you ashamed to be like
to these ? They accused Salomon's temple of idols, because they saw
there lawful images : you accuse the churches of God of idolatry, because
you see there the sacred images of Christ and his saints.
FuLKE, 5. Fulke. We know that the Jews had images without
sin, and so have we ; but to have images in any use of
rehgion without God's express commandment, neither is it
lawful for them nor us, because Ave have a general com-
mandment to the contrary. They were accounted like the
gentiles therefore, for having images contrary to God's com-
III.
TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 185
mandment, of their own appointment, and worshipping them ;
not for having images appointed by God, wliich yet it was
not lawful for them to worship. But the Protestants, you
say, are like to the Ammonites and Moabites, of whom St in Ezech.
Jerome writeth', that commg into the temple, and seemg
the cherubins covering the propitiatory, they said, "Lo, even
as the gentiles, so Juda also hath idols of their reUgion,"
as we accuse the church of God of idolatry, because we see
there the sacred images of Christ and his saints.
This that you say St Jerome writeth, he only reporteth
it as a ridiculous fable of the Jews : Ridiculam vero in
Jioc loco Hehrcei narrant fabulam. " The Hebrews in this
place tell a ridiculous fable." But fables are good enough
to bolster false accusations. Secondly, he reporteth them
to say : Sicut cunctm gentes colunt shnulacra, ita et Juda
habet suce religionis idola. " As all nations worship images,
so hath Juda also idols of their religion." By wliich words
you see, that he calleth images and idols the same things.
For simidacrmn to be taken as largely as imago, I have
proved before, insomuch that man is called simidacrum Dei,
"the image," not the idol, "of God," as idol is taken in the
evil part. But neither are you like to Juda, nor we to
Ammon and Moab, in this case. For Juda had God's com-
mandment to warrant their images ; so have not you, but
his commandment against your images. Again, Moab and
Ammon (if the tale were true) had idolatrous images of
their own ; so have not we.
Martin. But tell us yet, I pray you, do the holy scriptures of Martin, 6.
either Testament speak of all manner of images, or rather of the idols of
the gentiles 1 Your conscience knoweth that they speak directly against The holy
the idols and the idolatry that was among the pagans and infidels ; from speTketh
the which as the Jews in the Old Testament, so the first Christians in flXoVtife
the New Testament, were to be prohibited. But will you have a demon- ^'^"[^^'f aij"'
stration that your own conscience condemneth you herein, and that vou manner of
^ ' t! images.
apply all translation to your heresy ? What caused you, being otherwise
\} Ridiculam vero in hoc loco Hebrsei narrant fabulam. Postquam
urbs apcrta, templumque reseratum est, filiique Ammon et Moab et
Seir ingressi sunt templum, videruntque Cherubim protegentia pro-
pitiatorium, dixerunt: Sicut cunctse gentes colunt simulacra, ita
et Juda habet suse religionis idola. Comment. Hieronymi in Ezech.
cap. XXV. V. 8. Opera, Vol. iii. p. 870.]
186 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.'
in all places so ready to translate "images," yet Esai. xxxi. and Zachar.
xiii. to translate " idols" in all your bibles with full consent ? Why in
these places specially and so advisedly ? No doubt, because God saith
there, speaking of this time of the New Testament, " In that day every
man shall cast out his idols of silver and idols of gold :" and, " I will
destroy the names of the idols out of the earth, so that they shall no
more be had in remembrance." In which places if you had translated
" images," you had made the prophecy false ; because images have not
been destroyed out of the world, but are and have been in christian
countries with honour and reverence even since Christ's time. Marry, in
the idols of the gentiles we see it verified, which are destroyed in all
the world, so far as gentility is converted to Christ.
FuLKE, 6. Fulke. Verily the commandment of God, being a com-
mandment of the first table, unto which whatsoever is said
in the scriptures of images, or the worship of them forbidden,
must be referred, speaketh generally of all manner of images
made by the device of man for any use of religion, whether
they be of Jews, pagans, or false Christians. But we are
offered a demonstration, that our own conscience condemneth us
herein, and that we apply all translations to our heresy. And
that is this : in Esai. xxxi. and Zachar. xiii. with one con-
sent all translate " idols," because God speaketh of the time
of the New Testament, where if they had translated "images,"
they " had made the prophecy false, because images in chris-
tian countries are with honour, but idols of the gentiles are
destroyed out of the world so far as gentility is converted
to Christ." A goodly demonstration, I promise you ! That
the translators had no such respect, it is plain; for that-
they do not understand the xxxi. of Esaias of the time of
Christ, but of the reformation made by Ezechias. But
in Esai. xhv., which is a manifest prophecy of the church of
Christ, they all use the word "image;" also Micheas the v.
and in divers other places, where the destruction of idolatry
is prophesied by the religion of Christ, which is verified
only in true Christians ; for otherwise both idolatry of pagans
and of false Christians hath remained in many places, and
yet remaineth to this day.
]\Iartin,7. Martin. And what were the pagan idols or their idolatry? St Paul
Rom. i. telleth us, saying : " They changed the glory of the incorruptible God
the iiiois of into the similitude of tlie image of a con-uptible man, and of birds and
t e agans. -^^^r^^^^^ g^j^jj creeping things, and tliey served (or worshipped) the creature
more than the Creator." Doth he charge them for making the image of
III.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 187
man or beast ? Yourselves have hanging's and cloths full of such pauit-
ings and embroidermgs of imagery. Wherewith then are they charged ?
"With giving the glory of God to such creatures, which was to make them
idols, and themselves idolaters.
Fulke. That the pagans changed the glory of God Fulke, 7.
into the siniihtude of the image of man, &c. it was the
extremity of their madness ; but that they made images of
man or beast, if you will not confess that Jupiter, Mars, &c.
were men, and Isis a cow or beast, yet remember that they made
images of their emperors, and committed idolatry to them :
otherwise, to make images out of relio-ion was not the offence
of idolatry in them nor us, that have them in hangmgs,
and paintings, and other lawful images.
Martin. The case being thus, why do you make it two distinct things Martin, 8.
in St Paul, calling the pagans " idolaters," and the Christians doing the i Cor. v.
' . f „ ° Bib. 1502.
same " worshippers of images,' and that in one sentence, whereas the
apostle useth but one and the selfsame Greek word in speaking both of
pagans and Christians ? It is a marvellous and wilful corruption, and
well to be marked ; and therefore I will put down the whole sentence
as in your English translation : " I wrote to you that you should not
company Avith fornicators; and I meant not at all of the fornicators of this
world, either of the covetous, or extortioners, either the idolaters, &c., elSwXoXd.
but that ye company not together, if any that is called a brother be a "^1°""-
fornicator, or covetous, or a worshipper of images, or an extortioner."
In the first, speaking of pagans, your translator nameth "idolater" ac-
cording to the text ; but in the latter part, speaking of Christians, you
translate the very selfsame Gi-eek word " worshipper of images." Why elScoXoXd-
so ? Forsooth, to make tlie reader think that St Paul speaketh here not '^i°''**
only of pagan idolaters, but also of catholic Christians that reverently
kneel in prayer before the cross, the holy rood, the images of our Saviour
Christ and his saints, as though the apostle had commanded such to
be avoided.
Fulhe. The reason is, because we count idolaters and Fulke, 8.
worshippers of images to be all one. But "it is a marvellous
wilful corruption," that in one sentence, 1 Cor. \., we call
the pagans idolaters, and the Christians worsliippers of images,
and yet the same Greek word in both. If tliis were a
fault, it were but of one translation of the three, for the
Geneva Bible hath "idolater" in both, the other "worshipper
of idols" in the latter place. And we think the latter to
be understood of idolatrous papists, which worship idols made
with hands of men, as crosses, roods, and other images, to
188 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
as great dishonour of God and danger of their souls as
pagans did. So that if it had been "worshippers of images"
in both, the translation had not been amiss.
Martin, 9. Martin. Where if you have yet the face to deny this your mahcious
and heretical intent, tell us why all these other words are translated and
repeated alike in both places, " covetous," " fornicators," " extortioners,"
both i^agans and Christians, and only this word " idolaters " not so, but
pagans " idolaters," and Christians " worshippers of images." At the least
you cannot deny but it was of purpose done to make both seem all one,
yea, and to signify that the Christians doing the foresaid reverence before
sacred images (which you call worshipping of images) are more to be
avoided than the pagan idolaters : whereas the apostle, speaking of
pagans and Christians that committed one and the selfsame heinous sin
whatsoever, commandeth the Christian in that case to be avoided for his
amendment, leaving the pagan to himself and to God, as having not to do
to judge of him.
FuLKE, 9. Fulke. I think the cause was, that Christians might
understand who was an idolater, and what the word "idolater"
signifieth, which was used in the former part of the sentence.
And if the translator's purpose was by this exphcation to
dissuade the readers from worshipping of popish images, I
see not what cause he hath to be ashamed thereof, seeing
the Greek word signifieth as much as he saith : not as
though idols were proper only to the gentiles, and images
to Christians; for in other places he useth the name of images,
speaking both of the pagans and the Christians, 1 Cor, viii.
Although for my part, I could wish he had used one word
in both places, and either called them both idolaters or
both worshippers of images.
Martin, Martin. But to this the answer belike will be made, as one of them
.• hath already answered in the like case, that in the English bible ap-
Confuiat.'of pointed to be read in their churches it is otherwise, and even as we
let,™oi. 35." would have it corrected ; " and therefore," saith he, " it had been good
before we entered into such heinous accusations, to have examined our
grounds that they had been true." As though we accuse them not truly
of false translation, unless it be false in that one bible which for the
present is read in their churches ; or as though it pertained not to them
how their other English bibles be translated ; or as though the people
read not all indifferently without prohibition, and may be abused by
every one of them ; or as though the bible which now is read (as we
Bib. 1577. think) in their churches, have not the like absurd translations, yea,
o . 111. 5. jjjQj.g ai^gurd, even in this matter of images, as is before declared ; or as
III.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIRLE. 189
though we must first learn what English translation is read in their
cliurch (which were hard to know, it changeth so oft), before we may be
bold to accuse them of false translation ; or as though it were not the
same bible that was for many years read in their churches, and is yet in
every man's hands, which hath this absurd translation whereof we have
last spoken.
Fidke. Mine answer was framed to Howlet's reason, Fulke,
who would prove that our service was naught, because the ^^'
scriptures were therein read in false and shameless transla-
tions, example of which he bringeth, 1 John v.: " Children,
keep yourselves from images," To whom mine answer was
apt, when I said, "In the Bible appointed to be read in the
service it is otherwise," and as ho himself saith it ought to
be ; which answer as though it were made to the general
accusation of our translations, you with many supposings, as
though this, as though that, would make it seem to be un-
sufficient; whereas, to Howlet's cavil, it was not only sufficient,
but also proper. And therefore tliis is a vain supposal, "as >
though we accuse them not truly of false translation, unless
it be false in that one bible which for the present is read
in their church." For we grant you not the other to be
false, because this is true, and so are all the rest. "As though
it pertained not to them how their other Enghsh bibles be
translated." It pertaineth so far that, if there were a fault
in the former, we have amended it in the latter. But in
that text, for which I answered, I acknowledge yet no fault,
neither is that mine only answer ; for I prove that "image"
and "idol" with the apostle signifieth the same tiling. "Or as
though the people read not all without proliibition, and may
be abused by every one of them." There is no such false
translation in any of them, that the people can be abused
thereby to run into heresy. Yet again : "Or as though the
bible, wliich now is read (as we think), have not the like
absurd translations, yea, more absurd, even in this matter
of images, as is declared before." As though you have proved
whatsoever you prate of. Once again : " Or as though we
must first learn, what Enghsh translation is read in their
church (which were hard to know, it changeth so often),
before we may be bold to accuse them of false translation."
If you will accuse that translation which is read in our
ehurch, as Howlet doth, reason would you should first learn
190 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
which it is; and that is no hard matter, seeing there was
never more appointed than two, as oft as you say we change.
"Or, (at last,) as though it were not the same bible, that was
for many years read in their churches, and is yet in every
man's hands, which hath tliis absurd translation, whereof
we last spake." As though I could prophesy, when I an-
swered Howlet for the bible appointed to be read in the
church, in 1 John v., that you would find fault with an-
other text in that translation, that sometime was read in
the church, and yet is in many men's hands : which,
although it be well altered in that point, which you quarrel
at, in the two later translations, yet I see no absurdity in
the first, which for one Greek word giveth two English
words, both of one signification, yea, and the latter being
plainer, exphcating the former, which to English ears is
more obscure and less understood.
Martin, Martin. Surely the bible that we most accuse, not only in this point,
^^* but for sundry other most gross faults and heretical translations, spoken
Bib. 1562. of in other places, is that bible which was authorised by Crannier, their
archbishop of Canterbury, and read all king Edward's time in their
churches, and (as it secmeth by the late printing thereof again, anno
15li2) a great part of this queen's reign. And certain it is, that it was
so long read in all their churches with this venomous and corrupt trans-
lation of "images" always instead of " idols," that it made the deceived
people of their sect to despise, contemn, and abandon the very sign and
image of their salvation, the cross of Christ, the holy rood, or crucifix,
representing the manner of his bitter passion and death, the sacred
images of the blessed virgin Mary, the mother of God, and of St John
John xix. 26. Evangelist, representing their standing by the cross at the very time of
his passion. Insomuch that now by experience we see the foul incon-
venience thereof, to wit, that all other images and pictures of infamous
harlots and heretics, of heathen tyrants and persecutors, are lawful in
England at this day, and their houses, parlours, and chambers, are
garnished with them; only sacred images, and representations of the
holy mystery of our redemption, are esteemed idolatrous, and have been
openly defaced in most spiteful manner, and burned, to the great dis-
honour of our Saviour Christ and his saints.
FuLKE, Fulke. That bible perhaps you misHke more than the
^^' other translations, because archbishop Cranmer allowed it
by his authority. But howsoever it be, (as I think there be
more imperfections in it than in the other,) it is not your
accusation, without due and substantial proof, that can make
in.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 191
it less esteemed with any indifferent or wise man. If it
have caused the people to contemn and abandon all popish
idols, there is cause that we should give God thanks for it.
Albeit not the translation only, but preaching of the gospel,
and Christ crucified especially, by which Christ hath been
truly and Uvely painted forth unto them, and even crucified
among them, hath made them contemn, yea, and abhor all
carnal and human devices of the image of our salvation,
or representation of his passion by vain and dead images,
to be any helps of faith, rehgion, or the worship of God.
Where you say it is "seen by experience, that all other images
of infamous harlots and heretics, of heathen tyrants and
persecutors, are lawful in England, to garnish houses, when
sacred images are esteemed idolatrous, defaced, and burned,"
I know not well your meaning. For if you have any true
images of the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, or other holy
persons, I think they be as lawful to garnish private houses
as the other you speak of. Yea, the stories of the whole
bible painted, both of the Old Testament and the New, are
not forbidden, but in many places used : provided always, that
in the places appointed for the public service of God such things
are not lawful, for danger of idolatry, nor in private places to
to be abused, as they are of papists ; but rather, though they
were as ancient and as goodly monuments as the brasen
serpent was, which no images at this day can be, it is to the
great honour of God that they should be despised, defaced,
burned, and stamped to powder, as that was, which sometime
was erected by the commandment of God, by which not only
great miracles were wrought, but the wonderful mystery of
our salvation through faith in Christ was prefigured.
Martin. And as concerning the bible that at this day is read in their Martin,
churches, if it be that of the year 1577, it is worse sometime in this ^'^•
matter of images than the other. For where the other readeth " covet- Coi. iii. 5.
ousness, which is worshipping of idols," there this latter (whereunto
they appeal) readeth thus: " covetousness, which is worshipping of
images." And Ephes. v. it readeth as absurdly as the other : " A w. Fuike,
covetous man, which is a worshipper of images'." Lo, this is the En- S!"^"'' '°''
P "Covetousness, which is worshipping of images," edit. 1568.
"Covetousness, which is idolatry," 1579. Col. iii. 5. "A covetous per-
son, which is a worshipper of images," Ephes. v. 5. edit. 1568. "Nor
covetous person, which is an idolater," edit. 1579.]
192 A DEFEXCE OF THE EXGLISH [cH.
Foi. 3n. glish bible, which they refer us unto, as better translated and as correcting
the fault of the former. But because it is evident by these places, that
this also is partly worse and partly as ill as the other, therefore this
great confuter of master John Howlet fleeth once more to the Geneva
English bible, saying, " Thus we read," and, " so we translate ;" to wit,
*' A covetous person, which is an idolater." Where shall we have these
good fellows, and how shall we be sure that they will stand to any of
their translations ? From the first read in their churches they flee to
that that is now read, and from this again to the later Geneva English
bibles, neither read in their churches (as we suppose,) nor of greatest
authority among them ; and we doubt not but they will as fast flee from
this to the former again, when this shall be proved in some places more
false and absurd than the other.
FuLKE, Fulke. It pleaseth you worse, perhaps, that less favour-
eth your pelting distinction of images and idols; but it is never
the worse to be liked of them that be wise and learned,
which know that e'lKwv and eilwkov in Greek do signify
the same thing, which you cannot deny. And where you
say, in your scornful mood, " Lo, this is the bible, which
they refer us unto, as better translated and as correcting
the fault of the former," you follow your accustomed vein of
lying. For I acknowledge no fault of the former in this
point of images, but confute the frowardness of that foohsh
reason, which accuseth our service of reading the bible in
. shameless translations, in that text, 1 John v. ; whereas in
the bible appointed for the service it is not as he saith,
but even as he would have us to say. I fly not therefore
(as it pleaseth your wisdom to say) from that translation
also to the Geneva bible, neither do I allege the Geneva
translation for that cause you pretend, but to shew, that
albeit we translate in such words as you cannot mislike,
yet your venomous slandering pens and tongues can never
give over your peevish quarrelling. In the place by you
quoted, I defend both as true, and answerable to the Greek,
and of one sense and meaning, where the sound of words
only is diverse, the signification of matter one and the same.
And yet you must have your foolish flourish in rope-ripe
terms: "Where shall we have these good fellows," &c.? You
shall have us, by the grace of God, ready to justify all
our translation from shameless falsification and heretical
corruptions, which is your impudent charge against us. And
III.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 193
if ill matter of lesser moment you can descry the least
error in any or in all of our translations, we shall be
willing to confess the same, and ready to reform it. For
truth is dearer to us than credit ; although we think it
better credit to reform a fault, than, being admonished,
wUfully to continue it or defend it.
Martin. But what matter is it how thev read in their churches, or Martin,
' 13
how they correct their former translations by the later ; when the old
corruption remaineth still, being set of purpose in the top of every
door within their churches, in these words : " Babes, keep yourselves i John v.
from images*"? Wliy remaineth that Avritten so often and so con-
spicuously in the walls of their churches, which in their bibles they
correct as a fault 1 Their later bibles say, " Keep yourselves from idols :"
their church walls say, " Keep yourselves from images." St John,
speaking to the lately-converted gentiles, biddeth them beware of the
idols from whence they were converted : they, speaking to the old-
instructed Christians, bid them beware of the sacred image of Christ
our Saviour, of the holy crucifix, of the cross, of every such represen-
tation and monument of Christ's passion and our redemption. And
therefore in the very same place where these holy monuments were
wont to stand in catholic times, to wit, in the rood-loft and partition
of the church and chancel, there now stands these words as confronting
and condemning the foresaid holy monuments : " Babes, keep yourselves
from images." Wliich words whosoever esteemeth as the words of
scripture, and the words of St John, spoken against Christ's image,
is made a very babe indeed, and sottishly abused by tlieir scribbled
doors and false translations, to count that idolatry, which is indeed to
no other purpose, than to the great honour of him whose image and
picture it is.
Fulke. Still you harp on the old untuneable string, Fulke,
that the former is a corruption, which saitli, " Babes, keep ^''^•
yom^selves from images ;" wliich sentence sore grieveth you,
to be wi'itten in the top of chm'ch doors, or in place where
the rood-loft stood. And you ask why it remaineth on
the walls, which we correct as a fault in the bibles ? But
who told you that they correct it as a fault in the bibles?
Is every alteration with you a correction? The one ex-
phcateth the other, that idols of wliich St John speaketh
be images abused in religion. Not that all images be idols,
(as the word idol in the English speech is taken,) nor that
all idols be images, but as images that are worshipped. But
r* TfKvi'a, (fivKa^are eavrovs airo tS>v el8(oXa>u. 1 John v. 21.']
I FULKE. J
194 A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH [cH.
St John (you say), speaking to the converted gentiles, bid-
deth them beware of the idols, from whence they were
converted. That is true, but not only from them, but from
all other idols. Except perhaps you think, that Christians
by that text should not abhor the images of Simon Magus,
and Selene, and the images of the Valentinians, and Gnosticks,
and other hereticks, which worshipped the image of Christ
irenaus, lib. and of St Paul, as Irenaeus^ and Epiphanius^ do testify. And
1. cap. 20. . . . „
23,24. it seemeth, you so think m deed. For you say soon after,
Epiphanius, .^_^ '' t' i/ '
II h' 2^°""" "Whosoever esteemeth those words as the words of scripture
(if images be put for idols,) spoken against Christ's image,
is made a very babe." Such babes were Irenaeus and Epipha-
nius, that they condemned tliis worshipping of images for
heresy. Such a babe was Epiphanius, that finding the image
of Christ painted in vail hangmg in a church at Anablatha,
he judged it to be contrary to the scriptures, and rent it
in pieces. Such a babe was Tertullian^, that, speaking of
that very text of St John, " Little cliildren, keep yourselves
from idols," he writeth : Non jmn ah idololatria quasi ah
officio, sed ah idolis, id est, ah ipsa effigie eorum. Indignum
enim ut imago Dei vivi imago idoli et Tnortui fiat. " He
biddeth them take heed, not now from idolatry, as from
the service, but from the idols themselves, that is to say,
from the very images or shapes of them. For it is un-
worthy that the image of the living God should be made
the image of an idol, and that being dead."" Finally, such
a babe was your vulgar translator, that he saith : Filioli,
\} Contemnere autem et idolothyta, et nihil arbitrari, sed sine
aliqua trepidatione uti eis: habere autem et reliquarum operationum
usum indifFerentem, et universae libidinis. Utuntur autem et hi ma-
gia, et imaginibus, et incantoribus, et invocationibus, et reliqua uni-
versa periergia: nomina quoque qusedam affingentes quasi angelorum,
annuntiant hos quidem esse in primo coelo, hos autem in secundo; et
deinceps nituntur CCCLXV. ementitorum coelorum et nomina, et prin-
cipia, et angelos, et virtutes exponere. Irenaei, Lib. i. cap. 23. Opera,
p. 102. edit. Venet. 1734.]
r^ Ti Se aKKo rj Tvavav app-qrovpylav Kai ttjv ddefiirop Trpa^cv rjv ov
OejiiTov eVi (TTopLaros (pepeiv, ovtoi TrpdrTovcn ; Koi irav ei8os av8po-
/Sacriwj/, Koi XayvicrTepoiP 6p,i\iav npos yvvaiKas iv eKacrra fiepei croofia-
Tos, p.ay€ias re <cai (fiapfxaKfias Koi eiScoXoXarpei'aj eKTeXovvra. Epiphan.
adv. Haer. Lib. i. Tom. ii. 27. Opera, p. 105. edit. Paris. 1622.]
P De Corona, edit, de la Cerda. p. 678.]
lir.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 195
custodite vos a simulacris, wliich is all one, as if he should
have said ah imaginibus, (as I have plentifully proved,)
" Children, keep yourselves from images." As for the pur-
pose you pretend to have in honouring Christ by images,
contrary to his commandment, is indeed nothing but dis-
honouring of him and destruction of yourselves.
Martin. But the gay confuter with whom I began, saith for further Martin,
answer, "Admit that in some of our translations it be, 'Children, ^'^•
keep yourselves from images,' (for so he would have said, if it were foi' 35_ ^'
truly printed) what great crime of corruption is here committed?"
And when it is said again, this is the crime and fault thereof, that they
mean by so translating to make the simple believe that idols and images
are all one, which is absurd ; he replieth, " that it is no more absurdity,
than instead of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification."
And ui)on this position he granteth that, according to the property of
the Greek word, a man may say, " God made man according to his Gen. i.
idol," and that generally idoluni may as tnily be translated an " image," kutu t-ijV
as Tyrannus, a "king," (which is very true, both being absurd;) and '^"^"'^"'
here he cited many authors and dictionaries idly, to prove that idolum e'lSwXov.
may signify the same that image. eiKwv.
Fulke. But tliis scornful replier, with whom I have Fulke,
to do, is so accustomed to false and unlionest dealing, that
he can never report any thing that I have written truly ,-
and as I have written, but with one forgery or another he
will clean corrupt and pervert my saying. As here he
shameth nothing to affii*m, that I grant that, according to
the property of the Greek word, a man may say, God made
man according to liis idol. I will report mine own words,
by which every man may perceive how honestly he dealeth
with me :
" But admit that in some translation it be as you say,
' Cliildi'en, keep yourselves from images :' what great crime
of corruption is here committed? You say, that it is to
make simple men beUeve that idols and images are all one,
wliich is absurd. Tliis is no more absurdity, than instead
of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification.
But you reply, that then, where Moses saith that God made
man according to his own image, we should consequently
say, that God made man according to his idol. I answer,
howsoever the name of idols in the English tongue, for the
great dishonour that is done to God in worshipping of images,
13—2
196 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [oH.
is become so odious that no christian man would say, that
God made man according to Ms idol, no more than a good
subject would call his lawful prince ' a tyrant,' yet according
to the Greek word, e'lSwXov may be as truly translated an
image, as rvpawos a king."
Here, if I were disposed to give the rein to affection,
as you do often, being unprovoked by me, were sufficient
occasion offered to insult against your falsehood. But I
will forbear, and in plain words tell you, that if you be
so simple, that you cannot understand the difference of these
two propositions, ei^wXou, wheresoever it is read in Greek,
may be truly translated "an image;" and this, wheresoever
the word image is used in Enghsh, you may use the word
idol; you are mimeet to read a divinity lecture in England,
howsoever you be advanced in Rhemes, If not of ignorance,
but of malice, you have perverted both my words and
meaning, let God and all godly men be judge between you
and me. My words are not obscure nor ambiguous, but
that every child may understand my meaning to be no more
but this, that this English word idol is by use restrained
only to wicked images. The Greek word eiSooXov signifieth
generally all images, as Tvpai>vo<; did all kings, imtil kings,
that were so called, became hateful for cruelty, which caused
even the name tyrannus to be odious.
Mahtin, Martin. But I beseech you. Sir, if the dictionaries tell you that
6t'S&)Xoz/ may, by the original property of the word, signify " an image,"
(which no man denieth,) do they tell you also, that you may commonly
and ordinarily translate it so, as the common usual signification thereof 1
or do they tell you that " image" and " idol" are so all one, that where-
soever you find this word " image," you may truly call it " idol " ? For
these are the points that you should defend in your answer. For an
Rom viii example, do they teach you to translate in these places thus ? " God
iinagini. j^g^^^^ predestinated us to be made conformable to the idol of his Son."
1 Cor. XV. And again, " As we have borne the idol of the earthly (Adam,) so
2Cor. iii. let US bear the idol of the heavenly" (Christ). And again, "We are
transfonned into the same idol, even as our Lord's spirit." And again,
Heb. X. "The law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very
Col. i. idol of the things." And again, " Christ who is the idol of the invisible
God." Is this, I pray you, a true translation ? Yea, say you, according
to the property of the word : but " because the name of idols in the
English tongue, for the great dishonour done to God in worshipping
of images, is become odious, no christian man would say so."
2 Cor. iv.
III.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 197
Fulke. No man denieth (you say) that e'lSwXov may, Fulke,
by the original propriety of the word, signify an image. '
It is well, that being convicted by all dictionaries, old and
new, you will at length yield to the truth. But you demand,
whether the dictionaries do tell me that I may commonly
and ordinarily translate it so, as the common usual signifi-
cation thereof. Sir, I meddle only with the translations of
the scripture ; and the dictionaries tell me that so it usually
signifieth, and therefore so I may translate in the scripture,
or any other ancient Greek writer, that useth the word
according to the original propriety thereof. Peradventure
some later Greek writers, restraming it only to wicked images,
may so use the term, as the general signification thereof
will not agree to the meaning in some odd place or other.
But that is no matter to plead against our translation of
the scripture, when in that time it was written the word
was indifferent, to signify any image. Further than this,
you ask of me, if the dictionaries do tell me, that image
and idol are all one, and wheresoever I find the word imago,
I may truly call it idol ? JSTo, forsooth. Sir, they teach
me no such thing : neither do I say that the word image
and idol may be confounded ; but the clean contrary, if
your mastership had not mistaken me, because it was not
your pleasure to take me either according to my words, or
according to my meaning. Why, Sir, " these are the points
you should defend in your answer : for an example, do
they teach you to translate in these places thus, 'God hath
predestinated us to be made conformable to the idol of liis
Son'? and again, 'We have borne the idol of the earthly,'
&:c," I pray you, Su', pardon me to defend that I never
said nor thought : you yourself confess in the end, that I
say, that no christian man would say so : wherefore when
you say that I afiirm, this is a true translation according
to the propriety of the word ; can I say less ? Then you
lie lilvo a popish hypocrite.
Martin. First, note how foolishly and unadvisedly he speaketh here, Martin,
because he would confound images and idols, and make them falsely ^^•
to signify one thing: when he saith the name of "idol" is become odious
in the English tongue because of worshipping of images, he should
have said, the dishonour done to God in worshipping idols made the
198 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
name of idols odious. As in his own example of " tyrant" and " king,"
he meant to tell us that "tyrant" sometime was an usual name for
every king ; and because certain such tyrants abused their power, there-
fore the name of tyrant became odious. For he will not say, I trow,
that for the fault of kings the name of tyrant became odious. Likewise
the Romans took away the name of Manlius for the crime of one Man-
lius, not for the crime of John at Nokes, or of any other name. The
name of Judas is so odious, that men now commonly are not so called.
Why so ? because he that betrayed Christ was called Judas ; not because
he was also Iscariot. The very name of " ministers" is odious and con-
temptible. Why ? because ministers are so lewd, wicked, and unlearned ;
not because some priests be naught. Even so the name of " idol" grew
to be odious, because of the idols of the GentUes, not because of holy
images. For if the reverence done by Christians to holy images were
evil, (as it is not,) it should in tliis case have made the name of images
odious, and not the name of idols. But, God be thanked ! the name of
images is no odious name among catholic Christians, but only among
heretics and image-breakers, such as the second general councU of Nice
hath condemned therefore with the sentence of anathema : no rnore than
the cross is odious, which to all good Christians is honourable, because
our Saviour Christ died on a cross.
FuLKE, Fulke. Nay, first note how falsely, and then how
foohshly, and yet how impudently, he continueth a slander
against me of his own devising, that I would confound
those Enghsh words, "images" and "idols." For first he will
teach me to speak EngUsh, that where I said the name of
idol is become odious in the Enghsh tongue, because of
worshippiug of images, I should have said, "the dishonour
done to God in worshipping of idols made the name of
idols odious." And what, I pray you, were those idols, the
worsliipping of which made the name odious, but images?
May I not be so bold, mider your correction, to use the
general name images, which you say are not idols, until
they be abused ? When the image of Jupiter, king of Crete,
was first made, and nothing else done unto it, would you
call it an image, or an idol ? Sure I am, you called the
brasen serpent first an image, and then an idol. Even
so I trust I may, without offence of Enghshmen, say, that
the abuse of images, called first without note of infamy
ei^wXa, " idols," made the name of idols to be odious, and
therefore not appHed, but to such abused images : and the
example I brought of tyramvus, which first did signify
a king, is very plain and like, but that you are disposed
III.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 199
to play the peevish quarreller. And trow you, I will not
say, that for the fault of kings the name of tyrant became
odious ? Yes, verily, I will not spare to say, and so I said
before, that for the fault of such cruel kings, as were called
tyranni, though the name itself first signified not so, that
name of tyrant became odious. As for your fombhtudes^
of ManHus and Judas, two proper names, compared with
image, and idol, king, and tyrant, which be common names,
I will not vouchsafe to answer them. But the name of
" ministers'" (you say) is odious, for the faults of ministers,
and not for the faults of priests. Popish priests are odious
enough for their own faults ; so that they need not be
charged unjustly with the faults of our evil ministers : wliich
I would wish were fewer than they be ; but I trust there
are not so many evU of them, as your popish priests have
been, and are daily found to be. And whosoever of our
ministers hath been found worst, I think there may be
found, not a priest, but a pope, of your side as evU, or
worse than he. But if reverence done by papists, (which
you call Christians,) to images had been evil, (say you,) it
should have made the name of images odious also.- No,
Su% that followeth not, so long as that reverence was ac-
counted good and lawful; and now that it is found to be
abominable, the people having the other odious word of idols
in use, need not abandon the name of images, except they
had another to signify lawful and good images. The curse
of the idolatrous Council of Nice the second, no christian
man regardeth, which knoweth that by God's own mouth
in the scriptures aU makers and worshippers of idolatrous
images are accursed.
Martin . But to omit this man's extraordinary and unadvised speeches. Ma rti n ,
which be too many and too tedious, (as when he saith in the same sentence,
" Howsoever the name ' idol ' is grown odious in the English tongue,"
as though it were not also odious in the Latin and Greek tongues, but
that in Latin and Greek a man might say according to his fond opinion,
fecit hominem ad idolum suum, and so in the other places, where is irnago,)
to omit these rash assertions, I say, and to return to his other words,
where he saith, that though the original property of the words hath
[^ Danish, famler, to hesitate, stammer, falter : this word of Fulke's
is deduced from fumble. Or is it a misprint for similitudes ?]
200 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
that signification, yet "no christian man would say, that God made
man according to his idol, no more than a good subject would call his
lawful prince a tyrant :" doth he not here tell us that which we would
have, to wit, that we may not speak or translate according to the origi-
nal property of the word, but according to the common, usual, and
accustomed signification thereof? As we may not translate Phalaris
tyrannus, "Phalaris the king," as sometime tyrannus did signify, and
in ancient authors doth signify ; but " Phalaris the tyrant," as now this
word tyrannus is commonly taken and understood : even so we may
Ab idoiis. ^ot uow translate, " My children, keep yourselves from images," as the
diro Twv el- word may, and doth sometime signify, according to the original pro-
1 Joh. V. perty thereof; but we must translate, " Keep yourselves from idols,"
according to the common use and signification of the word in vulgar
speech, and in the holy scriptures. Where the Greek word is so noto-
riously and usually peculiar to idols, and not unto images, that the holy
fathers of the second Nicene council (which knew right well the signi-
fication of the Greek word, themselves being Grecians) do pronounce
anathema to all such as interpret those places of the holy scripture,
that concern idols, of unages, or against sacred images, as now these
Calvinists do, not only in their commentaries upon the holy scriptures,
but even in their translations of the text.
FuLKE, Fulke. We cannot yet be rid of this man's extraordinary
^'^- and imadvised surmises, which are too many and tedious;
as where I say the name idol is odious in the EngUsh
tongue, he gathereth, that I mean it to be odious only in
the Enghsh tongue, and not in the Latin and Greek. I have
shewed before, that m TuUy's time it was not odious in
Latin ; and it is not long since Master Martin confessed the
Greek word, according to the original propriety, to signify as
generally as e'lKwu, " an image," wliich is not odious. Although
in later times, among Christians, both of the Greek and the
Latin church, the name of idolum became odious, as well
as the word ' idol' in Enghsh. Therefore it is not my fond
opinion, but M. Martin's foohsh collection, that a man may
say in Latin, fecit hominem ad idolum suum : and yet I
am charged with rash assertions, when nothing is reproved
that I affirm, but that which he himself doth imagine.
But now you will retm^n to those words of mine, where
I say, that though the original propriety of the words ,hath
that signification, yet no christian man would say, that
God made man according to liis idol, no more than a good
subject would call his lawful prince a tyrant. These words,
you say, do tell us, that we may not speak or translate
III.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 201
according to the original propriety of the word, but ac-
cording to the common, usual, and accustomed signification
thereof. For speaking, I grant, as the words are used in
our time : but for translating, I say you must regard how
the words were used in time of the writer, whose works
you translate. As if you would translate out of Euripides,
Th yrj<i Tvpavvo<i, would you say, " Who is tyrant of this
land"? or rather, "Who is king"? or in Aristophanes, Z^ca
dewv Tvpavvov, would you translate, " Jupiter, tyrant of the
gods," or "king of the gods" ? I think, not. But in St John,
seeing at that time that he wrote eiSwXov signified an image
generally, it may be translated an image generally ; and
seeing he speaketh of the imlawful use of images, it may
also be translated an idol, as the word is now taken to
signify. How the late petty prelates of the second Nicene
Council were disposed to use the word, to colour their
blasphemous idolatry, it is not material. The ancient dic-
tionaries of Suidas, Phavorinus, Hesychius, with the examples
of Homer, Plato, and other ancient Greek authors, are of
more credit for the true and ancient signification of that
word.
Martin. This then being so, that words must be translated as their IMaiitin,
common use and signification requireth, if you ask your old question, °'
what great crime of corruption is committed in translating, "keep your- Lococitatr.
selves from images," the Greek being dbakav, you have answered
yourself, that in so translating, " idol " and " image" are made to signify
one thing, which may not be done, no more than " tyrant" and " king"
can be made to signify all one. And how can you say then, that "this
is no more absurdity, than instead of a Greek word to use a Latin of
the same signification"? Are you not here contrary to yourself? are
"idol" and "image," "tyrant" and "king," of one signification? Said
you not, that in the English tongue " idol" is grown to another significa-
tion than " image," as " tyrant" is grown to another signification than
"king"? Your false translations, therefore, that in so many places
make " idols" and " images" all one, not only forcing the word in the
holy scriptures, but disgracing the sentence thereby, (as Ephes. v. and Eph. v. a co-
Col, iii.) are they not in your own judgment veiy corrupt ; and, as your Is a worship-
own consciences must confess, of a malicious intent corrupted, to disgi-ace rnd"coi!^nr '
thereby the church's holy images, by pretence of the holy scriptures that Ps°wor°ship!^*
speak only of the pagans' idols ? Fmagef
Fulke. Again I repeat, that words must, or may be Fulke,
translated according to that signification they had in time "
202
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
CH.
of the writer whom you translate. And to my question,
what absurdity is it in that text of St John, for elScoXov
to translate " image "; you answer, by that means idol and
image are made to signify one thing. But that is not so ;
for image signifieth more generally than idol in Enghsh,
and " image'' answereth properly to the Greek word el^wXou,
"idol" to the meaning of St John, that is, of wicked images;
so that the translation is good : even as Tvpavvo9 may
be translated " a king," generally, according to the word ;
and if the author mean of a cruel long, it may be trans-
lated " a tyrant." For king is a general word, applied to
good kings and to evil, as image is to lawful and un-
lawful images. Therefore our translations, that for e'lSooXov
say an image, are not false, much less any mahcious cor-
ruptions. And if the translators, in so doing, intended to
disgrace popish images, I think they did ;well, and according
to the meaning of the Holy Ghost; who, forbidding generally
all images, that may be had in rehgious reverence, did not
restrain the signification of the word e'i^oAov to the wicked
idols of the gentiles, but left it at large, to comprehend
all such images, and all kinds of worshipping them, as are
contrary to the law and commandment of God.
Martin,
19.
T1J Baa\,
siibaud.
(Txij/Vy.
Num. xxii.
TO dioTre-
Martin. But of the usual and original signification of words (whereof
you take occasion of manifold corruptions) we will speak more anon,
if first we touch some other your falsifications against holy images ; as,
where you affectate to thrust the word "image" into the text, when
there is no such thing in the Hebrew or Greek, as in that notorious
example^, 2 Par. xxxvi. (Bib. 1562.) "Carved images that were laid to
his charge:" again, Rom. xi., " To the image of BaaP;" and Acts xix.,
^ Kai TO \oLTTa ratv Xdycoi/ 'iwaKi/x Koi to. iravra a enoiTjcrep, ovk
l8ov ravra yeypayifiiva, &c. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 8. " Reliqua autem ver-
borum Joakim, et abominationum ejus, quas operatus est, et quae
inventa sunt in eo, continentur in libro Regum, &c." Vulg. " The
rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations wliich he did, and
carved images that were laid to his charge, behold, they are written,
&c." Bible 1562. "And his abominations wliich he did, and that which
w^as found upon (found in, Authorised version) him," Geneva Bible,
1560.]
^ OLTLves OVK eKafi'^av yovv rfj BaaX. Rom. xi. 4. "Qui non
curvaverunt genua ante Baal," Vulg. " Which have not bowed the
knee to the image of Baal," Cranmer, Geneva, Authorised. "AVTiich
III.] TRANSLATIONS OP THE BIBLE. 203
" The image that came down from Jupiter V Where you are not content
to understand " image" rather than " idol," but also to thrust it into the
text, being not in the Greek, as you know very well.
Fulke. Three places you note, where the word image Fulke,
is tlirust into the text, being neither in the Hebrew nor
Greek. The first, 2 Par. xxxvi. bib. 1562, which I con-
fess is a fault, but I marvel how it crept in. For Thomas
Matthew's Bible, wliich was printed before it, hath not that
word, " carved images." It is reformed also in both the trans-
lations that followed.
The second, Romans xi., is no corruption ; for seeing you
acknowledge that a substantive must be understood to bear
up the feminine article; what reason is there, why we should
not understand e'lKovi, rather than (XTYiXri, seeing it is certain
Baal had an image that was worsliipped in his temple?
2 Reg. X. The tliird place is Acts xix., where the word
image is necessarily to be understood, "which fell down from
Jupiter," as it was feigned. Hereunto Pliny beareth witness,
Lib. XVI., cap. 40, and sheweth by whom it was made, and
of what matter : of the like speaketh Herodianus. And the
similitude of this image is yet to be seen in those ancient
coins that yet remain, which were called vaol, "temples*."
Wherefore your vulgar translation, which turneth tov ^toTre-
Tous Jovis prolis, is not right ; and therefore is corrected
by Isidorus Clarius, a Jove delapsi simulacri, with the
consent of the deputies of the council of Trent.
have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal," Bishops' bible,
1584.]
["^ OS ov yivaxTicei •n]v '^(peaicov ttoXiv vecoKopov ovcrav rrjs ij.eya.\r]s
'Apre'/iiSoy Kai tov AioTrerovs. Acts xix. 35. " Qui nesciat Ephesiorum
civitatem cultricem esse magna DianjE, Jovisque prolis?" Vulg.
" And of the image which came down from heaven," Tyndale. " Of
the image which came from heaven," Cranmer. " Of the image
which came from Jupiter," Geneva. "And of the Qmage] which
came down from Jupiter," Bishops' bible. "To be a worshipper of
great Diana, and Jupiter's child," Rhemish. " And of the image
which fell down from Jupiter," Authorised version.]
Q* The Scholiast upon the Rhetoric of Aristotle i. 16, says, that
vaol are eiKovoa-Tdcna, capellulae cum imagioibus inclusis. Aramianus
Marcellinus says, that Asclepias secum semper circumferret Dese cce-
lestis argentum breve figmentum. Such was meant by rrjv a-Krjvrjv tov
MoXox, Acts vii. 43. Beza calls those coins vaol, which have the
204 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH:
MAmiN, Martin. Of this kind of falsification is that which is crept as a
20 • •
leprosy throughout all your bibles, translating sculptik and conflatile,
" graven image," " molten image," namely in the first commandment,
eUwXov. where you know in the Greek it is "idol," and in the Hebrew such
703 a word as signifieth only "a graven thing," not including this word
" image ;" and you know that God commanded to make the images of
cherubins, and of oxen in the temple, and of the brasen serpent in the
desert ; and therefore your wisdoms might have considered, that he
The meaning forbade uot all graven images, but such as the gentiles made and wor-
command- shii)ped as gods : and, therefore, non fades tibi sculntile, concurreth with
cerning false those words that go before, " Thou shalt have none other gods but me."
|ravei"idois. For SO to have an image as to make it a God, is to make it more than
an image ; and therefore, when it is an idol, as were the idols of the
gentiles, then it is forbid by this commandment. Otherwise, when the
The cross in cross stood many years upon the table in the queen's chapel, was it
chapeK^"* against this commandment? or was it idolatry in the queen's majesty
and her counsellors, that appointed it there, being the supreme head of
your church ? Or do the Lutherans, your pue-fellows, at this day com-
mit idolatry against this commandment, that have in their churches the
Images in the crucifix, and the holy images of the mother of God, and of St John
churches. the evangelist? Or if the whole story of the gospel concerning our
Saviour Clu'ist were drawn in pictures and images in your churches,
as it is in many of ours, were it, trow you, against this commandment ?
Fie, for shame ! that you should thus with intolerable impudence and
deceit abuse and bewitch the ignorant people, against your own know-
ledge and conscience. For wot you not, that God many times expressly
forbade the Jews both marriages and other conversation with the gen-
1 Kings ii. tiles, lest they might fall to worship their idols, as Salomon did, and
as the Psalm reporteth of them? This then is the meaning of the
commandment, neither to make the idols of the gentiles, nor any other
like unto them, and to that end, as did Jeroboam in Dan and Beth-el.
FuLKE, Fulke. This is a sore complaint, that we have falsified
the scripture, as it were with a leprosy, in translating sculp-
tile and conflatile, "a graven" and "a molten image," and
representation of the temple of Diana upon them, in the same way as
others are called boves, puellae, puUi, testudines, from having those re-
spective figures upon them. Casaubon, however, says, that though
this is a probable conjecture, it is not satisfactory, since no one of
the ancients mentions them by the name. A medal of this descrip-
tion, exhibiting an octostyle temple, with the image of Diana in the
centre, may be seen in Calmet's Dictionary, p. 342. edit. Taylor, 1833.
Chrysostom's opinion is, that vao\ were a sort of ambrey or ciborium.
Uoiav, (f)T](ri, paovs dpyvpoiis 'Apre'jaiSoy. kol Trots e'vi vaovs apyvpovs
ytveadai ; 'laas (us Kifidpia piKpa. Acts xix. 24. Horn. xlii. Edit.
Savilii. iv. 845.]
III.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 205
namely in the first commandment, where there is no word
of image or imagery ; but indeed in the second command-
ment we translate the Hebrew wordpeseZ "a graven image." ^p2
You say it signifieth a graven thing, not including the word
image. I answer, you are not able to bring a place in the
bible, where it signifieth any other graven thmg, but only
an image : and yet it is derived of a verb, that signifieth
to grave, or hew ; as the word p^5^7^m, Jud. iii. taken for D'^TDS
quarries of stone, doth declare. Beside this, the word next
following, signifying a similitude or image, sufficiently sheweth
that it is not taken generally for any graven work, but
for such, wherein the hkeness or simihtude of God, or any
creature, is meant to be resembled : and the same doth also
the Greek word ei^wXov testify. As for the cherubins, oxen,
brasen serpent, or any thing wliich God commandeth, [it] is
not forbidden by this precept ; but that which man maketh of
his own head, to honour as God, or to worship God by it.
Wherefore, very absurdly, to cloke such abominable idolatry,
you say that this commandment, I^on fades sculptiU, doth
concm" with those words, " Thou shalt have none other Gods
but me." By wliich, not only two several commandments
are confounded, but also a vain tautology committed : or else
that added for interpretation, which is more obscure than the
text interpreted. Touching the cross, that stood sometimes
in the queen's chapel, whereof you speak your pleasure, as
also of her majesty's counsellors, it is not by and by idolatry,
whatsoever is against that commandment ; neither is the
having of any images in the chm'ch (which are had in no
use of religion) contrary to this commandment. And although
we will not accuse the Lutherans of idolatry, neither can we,
because they worship no images ; yet will we not excuse
them for suffering of images to be in their churches, whereof
may ensue danger of idolatry, but that in some part they go
against this commandment, deceived in their judgment, and
of us not to be defended m their error. After you have
railed a fit, with 'fie for shame!' and such like rhetoric, you
seem to make the prohibition of images none other, but such
as the prohibition of marriage and other conversation with
the gentiles, which was only for fear of idolatry. But when
you can shew the like absolute commandment, to forbid mar-
riage and conversation with the heathen, as this is for images
206
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
in religion and worshipping of them, we may have some
regard of your similitude : otherwise the meaning of this
commandment is generally to forbid all images of God, and
of his creatures, to honour God by them ; for to honour
them as Gods is a breach of the first commandment, as
properly as of the second.
Martin,
21.
Hebr.
Teraphim.
Matsebah.
Temunah.
Maschith.
Pesel.
Tselamim.
Tabnitli.
Hamanim.
Sasmel.
Massecah.
Nesachim.
Gillulim.
Miphletseth.
Gr.
eio(a\a.
dydXnaTa,
y^eipoTTOL-
IJTU.
■yXuTT-ra.
fiop<ptu
eLKlUV.
(TTijXai,
aTvKoL.
All image
and images,
in their
translations.
FULKE,
21.
Martin. This being a thing so plain as nothing more in all the
holy scriptures, yet your itching humour of deceit and falsehood for
the most part doth translate still "images," "images," when the Latin,
and Greek, and Hebrew, have divers other words, and very seldom that
which answereth to " image.'' For when it is "image" in the Latin,
or Greek, or Hebrew texts, your translation is not reprehended ; for
we also translate sometimes " images," when the text of the holy scrip-
ture requii-eth it. And we are not ignorant that there were images
Avhich the pagans adored for their gods ; and we know that some idols
are images, but not all images idols. But when the holy scriptures
call them by so many names, rather than images, because they were not
only images, but made idols; why do your translations, Uke cuckoo
birds, sound continually "images," "images," more than "idols," or
other words equivalent to idols, which are there meant ?
Fiilhe. Indeed there is nothing more plain in all the
holy scriptures, than that the worshipping of images of all
sorts is forbidden ; but that our " itching humour of deceit
and falsehood," (as it pleaseth you to speak,) hath corrupted the
text, to estabhsh any false opinion of the use of images, it
is not yet proved. But now you set upon us with thirteen
Hebrew words, and nine Greek words at once, which we for
the most part do translate still "images," "images :" and you
say we "sotmd with cuckoo birds continually, 'images, images,'
more than 'idols'" or other words equivalent to idols." How
many times the word image is sounded, I never had care to
seek, and now I have no leisure to number; but I am sure idols
and idolatry, in that translation in which least, are named
above forty or fifty times. But to a conscience guilty of
worshipping of images, contrary to the express commandment
of God, the very name of images must needs sound unplea-
santly. That we have no greater change of words to answer
so many of the Hebrew tongue, it is of the riches of that
tongue, and the poverty of our mother language, which hath
but two words, image and idol, and them both borrowed of
the Latin and Greek : as for other words equivalent, we
III.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 207
know not any, and we are loth to make any new words of
that signification, except the. multitude of Hebrew words of
the same sense coming together do sometimes perhaps seem
to requu-e it. Therefore as the Greek hath fewer words
to express this thing than the Hebrew, so hath the Latin
fewer than the Greek, and the English fewest of all, as will
appear if you would undertake to give us Enghsh words for
the tliirteen Hebrew words : except you would coin such
ridiculous inkhorn terms, as you do in the New Testament,
azymes, prepuce, neophyte, sandale, parasceve, and such like.
Martin. Two places only we will at this time ask you the reason Martin,
of : first, why you translate the Hebrew and Greek that answereth to " "
•^ "" Matsebah.
statua, "image," so often as you do? Whereas this word m the said o-rtiX?;.
tongues is taken also in the better part ; as when Jacob set up a stone Gen. xxviii.
and erected it for a title, pourmg oil upon it ; and the prophet saith,
" Our Lord's altar shall be in Egypt, and his title beside it." So that isai. xix. 19.
the word doth signify generally a sign erected of good or evil, and there-
fore might very well, if it pleased you, have some other English than
''image." Unless you will say that Jacob also set up an image, and
our Lord's image shall be in Egypt ; which you will not say, though you
might with more reason than in other places.
FulJce. Seeing you ask, why we translate the Hebrew Fulke,
word matsebah so often an image ; it had been reason you '
should have told us how often we do so, or at least noted
some place, where it cannot signify an image. We know
the word, being derived of the verb jatsah that signifieth
to stand, may be taken for something erected, that is no
image, but a pillar, or (as your Latin text calleth it) a title,
in both the places by you noted. Gen. xxviii., Esai. xix. and
elsewhere. Gen. xxv., 2 Sam. xviii. But whensoever we
translate it an image, the circumstance of the place so re-
quireth, as 2 Kings x. where it is said, that Baal's images were
taken out of his temple, broken and burnt. For they were
images of Baal, that were worshipped in his temple, and not
titles or pillars. Likewise, 2 Kings xvii. where it is said,
that " the Israelites made unto themselves staiuas, images,
and groves under every liigh hill and under every thick tree :"
as appeareth by Ezechiel vi. where they be called gilluUm,
idols, wliich had the simihtude of men, as Baahm and such
other.
208
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
Martin,
23.
Of the year
1570.
Pesilim.
Massechoth.
e'iSwXa,
T
■yXinrToi'
oTi ey\v-
\J/av auTo
•Xoivev/JLa.
Of the year
1579.
Martin. Secondly, we demand why your very last English bible
hath (Esai. xxx. 22) for two Hebrew words, which aie in Latin sc7ilp-
tilia and conflatilia, twice, " images, " " images ; " neither word being
Hebrew for an "image," no more than if a man would ask, what is
Latin for an "image"? and you M'ould tell him sculptile; whereupon
he seeing a fair painted image in a table, might happily say, Ecce egre-
gium sculptile; which every boy in the grammar school would laugh
at. Wliich therefore we tell you, because we perceive your translations
endeavour, and as it were afFectate, to make sculptile and " image" all
one; which is most evidently false, and to your great confusion ap-
peareth Abac. ii. 18', where for these words, Quid prodest sculptile, quia
sculpsit illudfictor suus, conflatile et imaginem falsam ? which is according
to the Hebrew and Greek, your later English translation hath, " What
profiteth the image ? for the maker thereof hath made it an image, and
a teacher of lies."
FULKE,
28.
FulJce. If it had said, " the graven images of sUver, and
the molten or cast images of gold," I know not what advan-
tage it had been to you, or loss to us. But neither word
(you say) is Hebrew for an image. Alack ! this is poor
sophistry, when all the world of Hebricians know, they are
Hebrew for nothing else, but for graven or cast images, and
by the figure synecdoche are taken generally for images,
of what making or matter soever they be. And the question
is not, by what art images are made, but to what use and
how they be used, that they may be condemned for unlawful.
Tliis I take to be the cause, why the interpreter neglected
the difference of the Hebrew words, which sometimes is not
observed, and in Enghsh impossible always, and unprofitable
to be kept. As for your own conceit, whereat you think boys
might laugh, I leave it to yourself. For if we were asked,
what is Latin for an image, we could answer somewhat
else than sculptile. But if a boy should ask [what] pesilim
or massecath m this place of Esay doth signify, we would
not answer a graven thing, or a molten tiling, lest he might
shew us the mantel-tree of a cliimney, and a brass pot hang-
ing over the fire, and demand further whether Esay in this
n Tt cocpeXel yXvTTTov, on eyXvyj/av avro ; Znkacrev aiiro ^^covev^ia,
(havTaaiav ■^evdrj, on TreTroidev 6 TrXacras eVt to TrXacrfxa avrov, tov
TToiija-ai ei'ScoXa K(D(pd. Habakkuk ii. 18. "Quid prodest sculptile,
quia sculpsit illud fictor suus, conflatile, et imaginem falsam? quia
speravit in figmento fictor ejus ut faceret simulacra muta," Vulg.
The English version is given from the Bishops' bible in loco.]
III.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 209
text spake of them, and all such things as they are. But
it is most evidently false (you say) that sculptile and image
are all one, and this appeareth to our great confusion, Abacuc
the second, &c. But I say, to your shame it will appear
by this very text, that pesel and massecah signify one and
the same thing, and that most evidently. For thus the text
is: "What profiteth the image (pesel,) for his maker (iofsero)
hath made it, or (as you wiU have it) hath graven it (pesalo:)"
what followeth now, but massecah, an image ? you had rather
say confiatile, a molten image. But then you must remem-
ber, that the maker of it by graving made it a molten image ;
wliich is a strange piece of work, except you will say, that
first he did cast it, and then he did grave it : but say which
way you will, the same image is called pesel and massecah,
without difference. The last words are umoreh shaker, "and
a teacher of lies ;" for which words your translation hath
imaginem falsam, " a false image," whereas moreh never sig-
nifieth an image. But of that afterward.
Martin. I would every common reader were able to discern your Martin,
falsehood in this place. First, you make sculpere sculptile, no more than
" to make an image" : which being absurd, you know, (because the
painter or embroiderer making an image cannot be said sculpere sculptile)
might teach you that the Hebrew hath in it no signification of image,
no more than sculpere can signify " to make an image ;" and therefore Sculptile.
the Greek and the Latin precisely (for the most part) express neither T^"'""'''"''
more nor less than a thing graven ; but yet mean always by these words
" a graven idol," to which signification they are appropriated by use of
holy scripture, as simulacrum, idolum, confiatile, and sometime imago.
In which sense of signifying " idols,'' if you also did repeat " images"
so often, although the translation were not precise, yet it were in some
part tolerable, because the sense were so ; but when you do it to
bring all holy images into contempt, even the image of our Saviour
Christ crucified, you may justly be controlled for false and heretical
translators.
Fulke. I would " every common reader were able to dis- Fulke,
cern"" your foolish malice in this place. For first, while you
cavil at the etymology of the words, which the prophet re-
gardeth not, you make him say, that the fashioner thereof
hath graven a graven tiling, a molten thing. Secondly,
where you say, that the Hebrew word pesel hath no signi-
fication of an image in it, leaning to the bare derivation from
r 1 14
[fulke. J
210 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
the verb pasal, you control the only use of it, which is to
signify an image or idol, whether it be graven or molten,
or by what workmanship soever it be made, which you con-
fess to be the sense of it. But when we do it (you say)
to bring all holy images into contempt, we may justly be
controlled for false and heretical translators. First, we know
no holy images, made with hands, at this time so accounted,
but they are all profane and abominable idols. Secondly,
if the translator's purpose were evil, yet so long as the words
and sense of the original tongue will bear liim, he cannot
justly be called a false and heretical translator, albeit he have
a false and heretical meaning ; as you papists have in your
late translation of the New Testament ; yet where you trans-
late, either according to the words, or according to the sense,
no equity can condemn you for false translators.
IMautin, Martin. As in this very place (which is another falsehood like to
the other) conflatile you translate " image", as you did sculptile, and so
Hab. ii. here again in Abacuck (as before in Esay is noted) for two distinct
words, each signifying another diverse thing from " image," you trans-
late " images," " images." Thirdly, for imuginern falsam, " a false
image," you translate another thing, without any necessary pretence
either of Hebrew or Greek, avoiding here the name of "image," be-
cause this place telleth you that the holy scripture speaketh against
(pavTaalav folse images, or as the Greek hath, "false phantasies," or as you trans-
\j/ev67i. j^^^^ ^j^^ Hebrew, "such images as teach lies," representing false gods
1 Cor. viii. which are not, as the apostle saith, idolum nihil est ; and non sunt Dii
qui manibus fiunt. Which distinction of false and true images you will
not have, because you condemn all images, even holy and sacred also ;
and therefore you make the holy scriptures to speak herein accord-
ingly to your own fancy.
FuLKE, Fulke. Seeing the prophet regardeth not the etymology
of the words, but useth both for one and the same image,
no, nor regardeth the matter whereof it is made, as appeareth
in the next verse, where he calleth this idol wood and stone,
which cannot be molten ; every reasonable man may see, that
the word massecah doth in this place signify generally an
image, which is made to be a teacher of lies. And whereas
you repeat, that the two words do "signify each another
diverse thing from image," because the one signifieth a
graven thing, the other a molten thing, you speak without
III.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 211
all shame and sense of honesty : for pesel signifieth not every
graven, carved, or hewn tiling, but only an image. For who
would say, that a morter or a gutter of hewn stone were in
Hebrew to be signified by the v(OY([ pesel, or a pewter pot
or a dish by the word massecah? Seeing the use of the
Hebrew tongue therefore hath appropried these names only
to images, it is great frowardness, and no learning, to quarrel
about the etymology or derivation of them. As this name
building, in Enghsh, is taken only for houses : as when we
say. Here are goodly buildings; which if a man would extend
according to the derivation, and shewing nothing else but
walls of brick or other matter, praise them for goodly build-
ings, he should be thought to speak strangely in our tongue,
and yet, according to the derivation, building may signify
anything that is builded. But for imaginem falsam, a false
image, you charge us to "translate another thing, without any
necessary pretence, either of Hebrew or Greek." Such af-
firmations will make us think meanly of your knowledge in
the Hebrew tongue. For what, I pray you, else can moreh TVj)U
in this place signify, but a teacher ? or where is it ever taken
for an image, as your Latin text hath, or a fantasy, as the
Greek readeth? Turn over your dictionary and Hebrew
concordance, and see if vou can find it used for an image
or an idol. At leastwise, give credit to Isidorus Clarius,
who thus writeth in his notes upon the text : Quod ait
imaginem falsam^ in Heh. est docens, vel annuncians menda-
cium. " That he saith a false image, in the Hebrew it is
teaching or shewing forth a lie." The distmction you
make of true and false images, is vain for this purpose : for
all images that are used in religion are false, and teachers
of falsehood, which you with Gregory say are laymen's
books ; but what shall they teach, saith Abacuc and Jeremiah, Hab. li.
but lies and vanity ? Where note, that Jeremiah calleth the
image wood, by synecdoche, signifying all images made with
hands, of any matter. Again he saith, "Every artificer is con-
founded in his image, because it is false which he hath made;,
and there is no breath in it." In which verse it is to be
observed, that he useth first the word pesel, saying mippasel, ^D2Q
and afterward nisco, for the same image made by the arti- "j^p^
ficer, without distinction of graving or melting, at leastwise
for the sense, though the Avords be diverse. Even so your
14—2
212 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
vulgar Latin translator useth sculptile, conflatile, imaginem et
simulacrum, for one and the same thing. The scriptiu*e
therefore telling us that all images are false, because they,
being void of life, are set up to represent the living, it is
not our fantasy, but the authority of God's word, that causeth
us to reject your fantastical distinction of true and false
images.
Martin, Martin. Wherein you proceed so far, that when Daniel said to the
Dan. xiv. 4. king, " I worship not idols made with hands," (el'ScoXa ;i^6t/307rot7;Ta,)
ab. 1562. yQjj make him say thus, " I worship not things that be made with
hands ^," leaving out the word " idols" altogether, as though he had said,
" nothing made with hand were to be adored ;" not the ark, the propi-
tiatory, no, nor the holy cross itself, that our Saviour shed his blood
upon. As before you added to the text, so here you diminish and take
from it at your pleasure.
FuLKE, Fulhe. That "thing" is put for idol, I confess it to be
a fault in some translations ; but in the Geneva bible it is
reformed. Contempt of the authority of that apocryphal
chapter (as it seemed) did breed that neghgence. Where
you write, that he should by saying, " I worship not things
made with hands," have denied the ark and the propitiatory
to be worshipped, it is very true ; for neither of both was to
be worsliipped, as they were made with hands ; but God was
to be worshipped where they were, and those things to be
reverently esteemed, as the sacraments of God's presence.
As for the cross whereon Christ died, I see no cause why
it should be worshipped, if it were to be had ; but rather, if
it were to be worsliipped, it should be served as the brasen
serpent was. None of the apostles made any account of it :
Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, if there had been any
matter of rehgion in it, might have preserved it, and not
have suiFered it to be buried in the earth with the two other
crosses, as the story of the invention saith, if it be true.
At the finding whereof, Helena, as St Ambrose writeth, Begem
adoravit, non lignum utique, quia hie gentilis est error et vanitas
\J The story of Bel and the Dragon. " Because I may not worship
things that be made with hands," v. 4. edit. 1568. " Because I may
not worship idols made with hand," v. 5. ed. 1579. " Because I
may not worship things that be made with hands," 1562. (1584,
Bishops' bible.)]
III.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 213
impiorum : " She worshipped the king, not the tree verily ;
for this is an heathenish error, and vanity of ungodly men."
De obit. Theodosn\
Martin. But concerning the word "image," which you make to Martin,
be the English of all the Latin, Hebrew, and Greek words, be they -'•
never so many and so distinct, I beseech you, what reason had you to
translate yXuTrra "images"? Wisd. xv. 13. Doth the Greek word so sig-
nify ? doth not the sentence following tell you that it should hav,e been
translated, "gi-aven idols"? for thus it saith, "They judged all the
idols of the nations to be gods^." Lo, your images ! or rather, lo, the
true names of the pagans' gods, which it pleaseth you to call " images",
"images."
Fulke. I think you are not able to prove that we make Fulke,
" image " the Enghsh to all the Hebrew words, though you ^7.
boldly affirm it. But in the place by you mentioned, I sup-
pose they translated the Greek word " graven or carved
images,"" rather than idol, because the writer in that place,
Wisd. XV. 13. speaketh of the first framing and fashioning of
those images, which, though the purpose of the workman be
never so wicked, yet cannot properly be called idols, before
they be abused by them that worsliip them.
Martin. But, to conclude this point : you might, and it would have Martin,
well becomed you, in translating or expounding the foresaid words, to ^^'
have followed St Jerome, the great famous translator and interpreter of
the holy scriptures, who telleth you two senses of the foresaid words; the
one literal, of the idols of the gentiles; the other mystical, of heresies and
errors. " Sculptile," saith he, "and conflatile, I take to be perverse opinions, Comment.
which are adored of the authors that made them. See Arius, that graved ™ ^^' "'
to himself this idol, that Christ was only a creature, and adored that
which he had graven. Behold Eunomius, how he molted and cast a
false image, and bowed to that which he had molten'*." Suppose he had
[2 Opera, Vol. ii. p. 1211.]
r^ OvTos yap napa Trdvras oibep on dp,apTav(i., v\t}s yedSovs ev-
6pav(TTa a-KevT] Koi yXvTTTa 8r]p,iovpy(av. Sapient. Solomonis, XV. 13.
"Now he that of earth maketh frail vessels and images, knoweth
himself to offend above all other," Bishops* bible 1584, Cranmer
1562, Geneva 1560. "Ort navra to el'SwXa t5)V edvav iXoyla-avTO
deovs. Ibid. XV. 15. " For they judge all the idols of the heathen to be
gods," Bishops' bible.]
[* "Sculptile" et "conflatile" reor dogmata esse perversa, quse ab his
a quibus facta sunt adorantur. Vide Arium sculpsisse sibi idolum
214
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
FuLKE,
28.
exemplified of the two condemned heretics, Jovinian and Vigilantius
also ; had he not touched your idols, that is, the old condemned heresies,
which you at this day adore ?
Fulke. It becometh us best in translation to follow the
original text, and, as near as we can, the true meaning of
the Holy Ghost. As for the two senses Avhich Jerome telleth,
[they] stand whole and untouched for our translation. There
is a difference between a translation and a commentary. In
commenting upon the text, they that see it convenient may
apply the idols of the gentiles and the worship of them to
the heresies of our times, of the papists, anabaptists, libertines,
and such like, as the apostle doth by similitude to covetous-
ness. As for old condemned heresies, which you charge us
to worship as idols, you are able to prove none, whatsoever
you babble of Vigilantius and Jovinian : neither of both do
we foUow m any error, much less in any heresy.
JMartin,
29.
Zech. xiii.
Loco citato'.
Martin. These only (I mean heresies and heretics) are the idols
and idolaters (by the ancient doctors' judgment) which have been among
Christians since the idolatry of the gentiles ceased, according to the
prophets. Therefore St Jerome saith again : " If thou see a man that
will not yield to the truth, but when the falsehood of his opinions is
once shewed, persevereth still in that he began ; thou mayest aptly say,
sperat hi fiymento sua, and he maketh dumb or deaf idols^." And again,
"All heretics have their gods; and whatsoever they have forged, they
adore the same, as sculptile and confiatile; that is, 'as a graven and
molten idoP.' " And again, " He saith well, 1 have found unto myself
an idol ; for all the forgeries of heretics are as the idols of the gentiles ;
creaturs, et adorasse quod sculpsit. Ceme Eunomium conflasse ima-
ginem falsam, et conflationi suae curvare cervicem. Comment. Hie-
ronymi in Abacuc. ii. 18. Opera, Vol. iii. p. 1615.]]
[} Sive hific idola, de quibus apostolus loquitur (1 Tim. iv. 1, 2.).
Sicut enim idola fiunt manu artificis; ita hiereticorum perversa doc-
trina, quodcuuque siuiulaverit, vertit in idolum ; et facit Christo
adorari antichristum. Comment. Hieronymi in Zacliar. xiii. Opera,
Vol. III. p. 1787.]
[^ Si quando videris aliquem nolle credere veritati, et ostensa su-
orum dogmatuni falsitate in caepto studio perseverare, congrue poteris
dicere, Sperat in figmento suo, et facit simulacra niuta vel surda.
Comment. Hieronymi in. Abacuc. ii. Opera, Vol. iii. p. 1615.]
[^ Singuli enim haereticorum habent deos sues: et quodcunque
simulaverint, quasi sculptile colunt atque conflatile. Comment. Hie-
ronymi in Osce. xi. Opera, Vol. iii. p. 1311.]
in.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 215"
neither do they much diffei' in impiety, though in name they seem to
differ*." And again, " Whatsoever according to the letter is spoken In Amos. v.
against the idolatry of the Jews, do thou refer all this unto them, which
under the name of Christ worship idols, and forging to themselves per-
verse opinions, carry the tabernacle of their king the devil, and the
image of their idols. For they worship not an idol, but for variety of
their doctrine they adore divers gods. And he put in very well, ' which
you made to yourselves ;' for they received them not of God, but forged
them of their o^vn mindV And of the idol of Samaria he saith, "We inAmos.viii.
always understand Samaria (and the idol of Samaria) in the person of
heretics, the same prophet saying, ' Woe be to them that despise Sion, Chap. vi.
and trust in the mount of Samaria.' For heretics despise the churcli of
God, and trust in the falsehood of their opinions, erecting themselves
against the knowledge of God, and saying, when they have divided the
people (by schism), ' We have no part in David, nor inlieritance in the
son of Jesse*^ '."
Fulke. Not these only, but the idols of the Simonists, Fulke,
Valentinians, Gnostici, Carpocratits, Collyridians, and such ^^'
like, made with hands, of Christ, and his mother, of Paul,
and Simon, and Selene, and Pythagoras, &c. and such other,
were idols of false Christians, since the idolatry of the gentiles
gave place, by the judgment of Irenseus, Epiphanius, and
other ancient doctors. And whatsoever you cite or can cite
out of St Jerome agamst the idols of heresies, agreeth most
[* Et pulchre, Inveni, ait, idolum mUii: omnia enim hareticorum
figmenta idola sunt et simulacra gentilium: nee multum differunt in
impietate, licet in nomine discrepare videantur. Comment. Hieronymi
in Osee. xii. Opera, Vol. iii. p. 1321.]
[^ Quidquid autem juxta litteram dicitur contra populum Juds-
orum, hoc omne refer ad eos qui sub nomine Christi venerantur
idola, et prava sibi dogmata confingentes portant tabernaculum regis
sui diaboli, et imaginem statuarum et idolorum suorum. Non enim
unura colunt idolum: sed pro varietate doctrinse diversos adorant
deos et sidus dei sui. Comment. Hieronymi in Amos. v. Opera,
Vol. in. p. 1422.]
p Deficientibus autem virginibus, et adolescentes deficient, qui
prius vicerant mundum : et idcirco deficient, quia jurant in idolo
Samariae, quam in hiereticorum persona semper accipimus, dicente
hoc eodem propheta: Vcb qui despidunt Sion, et confidant in monte
SamaricE. Despiciunt enim hseretici ecclesiam Dei, et confidunt in
falsitate dogmatum suorum, erigentes se contra scientiam Dei, et scisso
populo ejus dicentes: Non est pars nobis in David, neque hcereditas in
filio Jesse. Comment. Hieronymi in Amos. viii. Opera, Vol. iii.
pp. 1444, 1445.J
216
A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH
[CH.
aptly to yourselves, the papists, who worship not only idols
made with hands, but also the idols of your brains, which are
abominable heresies.
Martin,
30.
FULKE,
30.
Martin. Thus the reader may see, that the holy scriptures which
the adversaries falsely translate against the holy images of our Saviour
Christ and his saints, to make us idolaters, do in deed concern their idols,
and condemn them as idolaters ; which forge new opinions to themselves,
such as the ancient fathers knew not, and adore them, and their own
sense and interpretation of scriptures, so far and so vehemently, that
they prefer it before the approved judgment of all the general councils
and holy doctors, and for maintenance of the same corrupt the holy
scriptures at their pleasure, and make them speak according to their
fancies, as we have partly shewed, and now are to declare further.
Fulhe. Thus the reader may see, that when you have
cavilled, quarrelled, falsified, and slandered, as much as you
can, to charge us with false translation of the scripture con-
cerning images, you can find nothing worth the noting : but
if some small oversight, through negligence, or perhaps the
printer's fault, hath escaped, you make a great matter of it,
although it be corrected by ourselves in other translations;
and when all other matter faUeth, you retiu"n to your ac-
customed vein of railing and reviling, which in no wise man's
judgment deserveth answer, because it is so general.
IV.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 217
CHAPTER IV.
The Ecclesiastical use of Words turned into their Original
and Profane signification.
Martin. We spake a little before of the double signification of Martin,!.
words ; the one according to the original property, the other according to
the usual taking thereof in all vulgar speech and writing. These words
(as by the way we shewed before, upon occasion of the adversaries' *^*'*P-,'i'\o
grant) are to be translated in their vulgar and usual signification, not see also m.
as they signify by their original property. As for example: major in 209; and the'
the original signification is "greater." But when we say, "the mayor this book °
of London," now it is taken and soundeth in every man's ear for such "al'&e^much
an officer; and no man will say, "the greater of London," according ""[^^"^''^'^
to the original property of it. Likewise episcopus, a Greek word, in the
original sense is "every overseer," as TuUy useth it, and other pro-
fane writers; but among Christians, in ecclesiastical speech, it is "a
bishop ;" and no man wiU say, " My lord overseer of London," for
" my lord bishop." Likewise we say, " seven deacons, St Stephen a
deacon :" no man will say, " seven ministers, St Stephen a minister ;"
although that be the original signification of the word " deacon." But
by ecclesiastical use and appropriation being taken for a certain degree
of the clergy, so it soundeth in every man's ear, and so it must be
translated. As we say, " Nero made many martyrs ;" not, " Nero made
many witnesses :" and yet " martyr" by the first original property of
the word is nothing else but a "witness." We say, "baptism is a
sacrament ;" not, " washing is a sacrament :" yet " baptism" and
" washing," by the first original property of the word, is all one.
FulJce. We have also answered before, that words must Fulke, l.
not be always translated according to their original and
general signification, but according to such signification, as
by use they are appropried to be taken. We agree also,
that words taken by custom of speech into an ecclesiastical
meaning are not to be altered into a strange or profane sig-
nification. For such vanities and novelties of words the
apostle prohibiteth ; whereof the popish translation of the
New Testament is fraught fuE. Notwithstanding our meaning
is not, that if any Greek terms, or words of any other
language, have of long time been usurped in our Enghsh
language, the true understanding of which is unknown at
this day to the common people, but that the same terms
218 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
may be either in translation or exposition set out plainly,
to inform the simplicity of the ignorant, by such words as
of them are better understood. Also when those terms are
abused by custom of speech, to signify some other thing
than they were first appointed for, or else be taken ambigu-
ously for divers things ; we ought not to be superstitious
in these cases, but, to avoid misunderstanding, we may use
words according to their original signification, as they were
taken in such time as they were written by the instruments
of the Holy Ghost. As for example, if 'a bishop' be mistaken
by the people, either for such an idol as the papists used to
make of their St Nicolas' bishops, or else for a great lord
only, that rideth about in a white rochet ; they may be told,
that the name of a bishop dcscribeth his office, that is, to
be an overseer of the flock of Christ committed to his charge.
Likewise if the word ' deacon' be taken for such an one, as
at a popish mass standeth in a disguised tunicle, holding
a patten, or some other idolatrous bauble used of them ; the
people must be taught, that this name signifieth a minister,
which was ordained not to serve the popish altar, but the
poor men's tables, that is, to provide for the poor, and to
see the church's alms bestowed upon them. Also if the
name of ' martyrs' be not understood, but taken only for them
that are tormented and rent in body, as the common speech
is to say, of men and beasts, that they are martyred, when
their bodies are wounded and mangled ; here it is needful
to shew, that the saints that suffered for Christ had their
name of then' witness or testimony, not of their pains and
torments. The name of 'baptism** is so common to Christians,
that it need not to be changed into washing : but yet it may
and ought to be explicated unto the imlearned, what this
word doth signify, which is no profane signification, but a
true and general understanding of the word, which is used
of the evangelist for other washino-s than the sacrament of
baptism, and so you are enforced to translate it, Mark vii.
Martin, 2. Martin. Now then to come to our purpose, such are the absurd
translations of the English billies, and altogether like unto these : namely,
when they translate " congregation" for " church," " elder" for " priest,"
" image" for " idol," " dissension" for " schism," " general" for " catho-
♦Scechap. lie," "secret" for "sacrament," "overseer" for "bishop," "messenger"
anU3,"4"iand for "angel*," "ambassador" for "apostle," " minister" for "deacon," and
IV.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 219
such like : to what other end be these deceitful translations, but to con- chap. xxi.
ceal and obscure the name of the church and dignities thereof, mentioned
in the holy scriptures ; to dissemble the word " schism" (as they do
also "heresy" and "heretic*") for fear of disgi-acing their schisms and G.ai-.y.-
heresies; to say of "matrimony," neither "sacrament," which is the icor. xi.
Latin, nor "mystery," which is the Greek, but to go as far as they
can possibly from the common usual and ecclesiastical words, saying,
" This is a great secret," in favour of their heresy, that matrimony is no Eph. v. 32.
sacrament' ?
Fulke. Absurd translations of the English bibles, you say, Fulke, 2.
are "congregation" for "church," "elder" for "priest," "image"
for "idol," and such lilce. The word "church" being ambigu-
ously taken of the people for the place of assembly, and the
assembly itself, it was as lawful for us to call congregation, as
for you to call it assembly. Acts vii. This word "priest"
commonly taken for a sacrificer and the same that sacerdos,
and so by you translated, there was good occasion to use the
word elder, for wliich you use senior, or ancient, in your
translation, which is a name of authority, as overseer is of
diligence, minister of service, pastor of feeding ; all which
names set forth a true bishop, pastor, and elder, and if you
will needs have it, of a true priest. Of " image" for idol is
said enough in the next chapter before. "Schism" I know not
howEnghshmen should understand, except it were Enghshed by
dissension, division, rending, or some such like. Of "general"
for catholic, we shall speak anon. " Secret" for sacrament
we use, because we would retain the ecclesiastical use of this
word sacrament, which is to signify the seals of God's pro-
1^^ bixo(TTa(Tiai, alpio-eis. Gal. V. 20. " Dissensiones, sectae," Vulg.
"Dissensions, sects," Wiclif, Rhemish. "Sedition, sects," Tyndale,
Cranmer. " Sedition, heresies," Geneva, Authorised.
A'tpeTiKuv avSpmnov. Tit. iii. 10. " Haereticum hominem," Vulg.
"A man heretic," Wiclif. "A man that is given to heresy," Tyn-
dale. "A man that is an author of sects," Cranmer 1539, 1562. " Him
that is an heretic," Geneva. "A man that is an heretic," Bishops'
bible 1584, Rheims, Authorised.
del yap koI alpeaeis iv vplv dvai. 1 Cor. xi. 19. "Nam oportet
et haereses esse," Vulg. " For it behoveth heresies to be," Wiclif.
" For there must be sects among you," Tyndale, Cranmer 1539,
1562. " For there must be even heresies among you," Geneva.
" For there must be heresies also," Rheims. " For there must be
also heresies," Bishops', Authorised.]
220 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
mises, and not confound it with every holy or unholy secret
thing. The Greek word "mystery,"" which you would enjoin
us to use, was in the time of the first translation more un-
known, than that we could well have used it, except we
would have followed your vein in vanity and novelty of
terms, prepuce^ neophyte, gratis, depositum, ^c, or else made
general and common the proper use of this ecclesiastical term
" sacrament" to every mystery, and called the sacrament of
preaching, of publishing the gospel to the gentiles, of the
seven stars, as you do, and yet in the sacrament of the whore
of Babylon you leave it and call it mystery, Rev. xvii. 7,
as you should be enforced to do, if you would translate the
Old Testament out of Latin, Dan. ii., divers times, except
you would call Nabuchadonozor's dream a sacrament, and
Dan. iv., where the king saith, that to Daniel no secret is
impossible, meaning unknown or not understood, you would
say no sacrament, and Tob. xii., you would translate sacra-
mentum regis absconder e honum est, "It is a good thing to
hide the king's sacrament," where you should say secret, and
where the English phrase would hardly bear you to say
the king's mystery. Of the other terms, in the places by
you quoted it shall bo suflSicient to speak. But I have ren-
dered reasonable causes of these terms hitherto, so that no
man, but mad with malice, would think we conceal the. name
of church and dignities thereof in hatred of them, or do
dissemble the names of schism and heresy in favour of those
abominations, which are as well set forth to their detestation
in the terms of dissension and sects. As for the name sacra-
ment, we find [it] not in the Greek ; but mysterium we trans-
late "a secret" or "a mystery," as the word signifieth, which
nothing favoureth the pretended sacrament of matrimony.
IVIahiin, 3. Martin. St Paul saith as plaiB as he can speak^ "I beseech you,
1 Cor. i. 10. brethren, that you all say one thing, and that there be no schisms among
r^ YiapaKoKSi he vfias, dbeXcpoi, 8ia tov ovofiaros tov Kvpiov rjfiaiv
'lr](TOv Xpicrrov, iva to airo Xeyrjre Travres, Koi fii] rj fv vplv crp^iV-
pLora. 1 Cor. i. 10. "Obsecro autem vos, fratres, per nomen Domini
nostri Jesu Christi, ut idipsum dicatis omnes, et non sint in vobis
schismata." Vulg.
" I beseech you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye all speak one thing, and that there be no dissension among
IV.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 221
you." They translate for "schisms" "dissensions;" which may be in
profane and worldly things, as well as in matters of religion. But
schisms are those that divide the unity of the church, whereof they
know themselves guilty. St Paul saith as plainly as is possible, " A Tjt. iii.
man that is an heretic, avoid after the first and second admomtion: dvdpwn-oi/.
they translated in their bible of the year 1562, " A man that is an author
of sects." And where the Greek is " heresy," reckoned among damnable alpearei^.
sins, they say " sects ;" favouring that name for their own sakes, and
dissembling it, as though the holy scriptures spake not against " heresy"
or "heretics," "schism" or "schismatics."
Fulke. St Paul indeed speaketh plainly in Greek ; but Fulke, 3.
if you speak English and say scliisms, forty thousand of the
people in England will swear they understand you not. But
scliisms (you say) are those " that divide the unity of the
church : dissensions may be in profane and worldly things.'""
Verily, all schisms divide not the church, for they were not
all the church, of whom it is said in St John ix., " There
was a schism among them :" for I think the best of the
Pharisees were scarce good members of the church. Again,
where St Paul doth say, "lest there should be a schism in the
body," 1 Cor. xii., he speaketh of the natm'al body, where-
imto he compareth the church. St Paul also saith, as plainly
as he can speak in Greek, 1 Cor. xi. 18., " I hear that
there be schisms among you :" yet your vulgar Latin trans-
lator is bold to say scissuras, cuttings or rendings, where
you are bold to go from your Latin text and call them
schisms. And for exphcating the Greek name of heresy
by sects, why should we be more blamed, than the vulgar
Latin translator, who commonly translateth it sectas, and namely
Gal. v., 2 Pet. ii.. Acts xxiv. divers times, xxvi. and xxviii.,
in all which places you yom'selves translate "sects" ? Is it
because he or you favour heresies and heretics ? Will you
never leave this foohsh wrangling, which always turneth
you to the greater discredit ?
Martin. As also they suppress the very name "catholic," when it Martin, 4.
is expressly in the Greek, for malice toward catholics and catholic reli-
gion, because they know, themselves never shall be called or known by
that name. And therefore their two English bibles, accustomed to be An. 156-2.
read in their church, (therefore by like most authentic,) leave it clean
you," Tyndale, Cranmer 1539, 1562, Geneva, Bishops' 1584. "And
that there be no divisions among you," Authorised Version.]
222
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
Lind. in Du-
l>itant.
Euseb. lib. ii. out in the title of all those epistles, which have been known by the
cap. 22. in name of Catholic(P Epistolcn ever since the apostles' time : and their later
"^1579. English bible (dealing somewhat more honestly) hath turned the word
" catholic" into " general," saying, " The General Epistle of James, of
Peter," &c. As if a man should say in his creed, " I believe the general
church," because he would not say, " the catholic church ;" as the Lu-
theran catechisms say for that purpose, " I believe the christian church."
So that by this rule, when St Augustine telleth that the manner was in
cities where there was liberty of religion, to ask, Qua itur ad catholicam ^
we must translate it, " Which is the way to the general ?" And when
St Jerome saith, " If we agree in faith with the bishop of Rome," ergo
catholici sumus ; we must translate it, " Then we are generals." Is
not this good stuff? Are they not ashamed thus to invert and pervert
all words against common sense, and use, and reason? Catholic and
general or universal (we know) is by the original property of the word
all one : but according to the use of both, as it is ridiculous to say,
" A catholic council," for " A general council ;" so is it ridiculous and
impious to say " general " for " catholic," in derogation thereof, and for
to hide it mider a bushel.
FuLKE, 4. FulJce. I do not know where the name of " eathohc" is
once expressed in the text of the bible, that it might be
suppressed by us, which are not hke to bear mahce to the
cathohc church or rehgion, seeing we teach even our young
children to believe "the holy catholic church." But not find-
ing the word catholic in the text, you run to the title of the
seven epistles, called as commonly canonical as cathohc or
general. But Eusebius belike testifieth that they have been
so called ever since the apostles' time, hb. ii. cap. 22.' I
marvel you are not ashamed to avouch such an mitruth.
Eusebius, speaking of his own time, saith they are so called ;
but that they have been so called ever since the apostles'
time, he saith not. And so far off he is from saying so,
that he pronounceth the epistle of St James in the same
place to be a bastard, and speaketh doubtfully of the epistle
of St Jude^ But whereas in one translation we use the
{} See the passage quoted before, p. 16.]
[^ Jacobus, qui appellatur frater Domini, cognomento Justus, ut
nonnulli existimant, Josephi ex alia uxore, ut autem mihi videtur,
Mariae sororis matris Domini, cujus Johannes in libro suo meminit,
filius, post passionem Domini statim ab apostolis Jerosolymoruni
episcopus ordinatus, unam tantum scripsit epistolam, qus de septem
catholicis est; quae et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita
asseritur. Hieronymi Catal. Scrip. Eccles. ii. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 101.
IV.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 223
word " general" for catholic, you make a great maygame of
it, shewing your wit and your honesty both at once. For
these five of James, two of Peter, one of Jude, and the first
of John, which are properly and rightly so entitled, have
that title, because they are not sent to any particular church
or persons, but to all in general, as the Greek scholiast
truly noteth, Qi^cumenius before the epistle of St James
saith expressly, Catholicce, id est, universales dicuntur Tice^
^c^. " These epistles are called catholic, that is to say, univer-
sal or general, because not distinctly to one nation or city (as
St Paul to the Romans, or Corinthians) this company of our
Lord's disciples doth dedicate these epistles, but generally
to the faitliful, or to the Jews that were dispersed, as also
Peter, or else to all Christians hving under the same faith."
For otherwise, if they should be called catholic in respect of
the soundness of the doctrine contained in them, what reason
were there more to call them so, than to call all the epistles
of St Paul ? Wherefore in this title, which yet is no part of
the holy scripture, it is rightly translated " general." The
other translators, seeing seven to be called general, where
only five are so in deed, and seeing them also called canon-
ical, which should seem to be a controlling of St Paul's epistles,
left out that title altogether, as being no part of the text and
word of God, but an addition of the stationers or writers.
Martin. Is it because they would follow the Greek, that they turn Martin, 5.
KaQokiKX] "general"? Even as just as when they turn f'iSoAop "image," CathoiiciB.
7rapado(Tiv "instruction," SiKalcofxa "ordinance," (rxl-a-fJia "dissension,"
mpea-iv " sect," fivcTTqpiov " secret," and such like ; where they go as
far from the Greek as they can, and will be glad to pretend for answer
Jacobus, Peti-us, Johannes, Judas, Apostoli, septem epistolas edi-
derunt tam mysticas quam succinctas, et breves pariter et longas:
breves in verbis, longas in sententiis, ut rarus sit qui non in earum
lectione caecutiat. Hieron. Epist. II. ad Paulinum. Opera, Vol. iv.
p. 574. See answer to preface, p. 88.]
L KadoXiKoi XiyovTUt avrai, olouel eyKvKXioi. ov yap d(pmpi(Tpevois
edvei evl *) noXei, (cos 6 deios navXos Tols 'Papaiois rj Kopwdiois)
Trpoa-cfxovel ravras ras eVtcrroXas 6 Tav toiovtcov tov Kvpiov p.adT]Tcov
Giaaos, aXXa KadoXov toIs Tnaro'is, i]toi 'lovSat'otj rois eV ttj diaaTropa,
as Kal 6 Uerpos, rj Kal ttckti rois vno rrjv avTrjv Tviariv XpicTTiavois
reXoia-iv. (Ecumenii Argument. Cathol. Jacobi Epist. Opera, Vol. 11.
p. 439. Edit. Lutet. Paris. 1631.]
'224 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
of their word " sect," that they follow our Latin translation. Alas ! poor
shift for them that otherwise pretend nothing but the Greek, to be
tried by that Latin which themselves condemn. But we honour the
said text, and translate it " sects" also, as we there find it, and as we
do in other places follow the Latin text ; and take not our advantage of
the Greek text, because we know the Latin translation is good also and
sincere, and approved in the church by long antiquity, and it is in sense
all one to us %vith the Greek : but not so to them, who in these days of
controversy about the Greek and Latin text, by not following the Greek,
which they profess sincerely to foUow, bewray themselves that they do
it for a malicious purpose.
FuLKEjS. FulJce. It is because we would have the Greek under-
stood, as it is taken in those places, when we turn " catholic""
general, idolum, image, irapaSoaiv, instruction, SiKaicufxa, or-
dinance, cr^/cr/ua, dissension, -aipecnv, sect, fivo-Ttjpiov, secret,
and such hke. And where you say, we would be glad for
our word "sect" to pretend to follow your Latin translation, it
is a fable. For in translating " sect," we follow the Greek
as truly, as your Latin translation doth ; which if it be true
and sincere, as you confess, what devilish madness possess-
eth your malicious mind to burden us with such purposes,
as no reasonable man would once imagine or think of, that
we should use that term in favour of heresy and heretics,
whom we thinlc worthy to suffer death, if they will not
repent, and cease to blaspheme or seduce the simple?
v.] TRANSLATIONS OP THE BIBLE. 225
CHAPTER V.
Heretical Translation against the Church.
Martin. As they suppress the name "catholic," even so did they Martin, 1.
intheii- first English bible the name of "church" itself; because at their
first revolt and apostasy from that that was universally known to be
the only tnie catholic church, it was a great objection against their
schismatical proceedings, and it stuck much in the people's consciences,
that they forsook the church, and that the church condemned them.
"V^'Tiereupon very wilily they suppressed the name "church" in their
English translation, so that in all that bible so long read in their con- Bib. 1562.
gregations we cannot once find the name thereof. Judge by these places,
which seem of most importance for the dignity, preeminence, and autho-
rity of the church.
FulJce. How can we suppress the name "catholic," which Fulke, 1.
the holy scripture never useth ? As for the name of church,
I have already shewed divers times, that for to avoid the
ambiguous taking of that term, it was at the first less used,
but never refused for doubt of any objection of the catholic
church against us : the profession of which, being contained
in our English creed, how could we relinquish, or not ac-
knowledge to be contained in the scriptiu'e, in which we
taught that all articles of faith necessary to salvation are
comprehended? But we are content to be judged "by those
places which seem of most importance for the dignity, pre-
eminence, and authority of the church."
Martin. Our Saviour saith, "Upon this rock I will build my church, Martin, 2.
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it \" They make him to Matt. xvi.
say, "Upon this rock 1 will build my congregation." Again, " If he Matt.xviii.
hear not them, tell the church ; and if he hear not the church, let him
be to thee as an heathen and as a publican ;" they say, " congregation^."
Qi oiKo^ofi-^fTQi jiov Ti)v €KKXr](riav. Matt. xvi. 18. " I will build
my congregation," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Bishops' bible. " I
will build my church," Wiclif, Rhemish, Authorised.]
Q2 fine rj] eKKkrja-la.. Matt, xviii. 17. " Tell it unto the congrega-
tion," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva. "Tell it to the church," ^Viclif,
Bishops' bible, Rhemish, Authorised version.]
r 1 ^5
[fulke.J
226 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
Again, who would tliink they would have altered the word " church"
in the Epistle to the Ephesians? Their English translation for many
Eph. V. years read thus : " Ye husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the
congregation, and cleansed it to make it unto himself a glorious congre-
1 Tim.iu. gation without spot or wrinkle." And, " This is a great secret, hut I
speak of Christ and of the congregation." And to Timothy, " The house
of God, which is the congregation of the living God, the pillar and ground
of truth." Here is no word of " church," which in Latin and Greek is,
Ecclesia Dei vivi, columna et Jirmamentum veritatis. Likewise to the
Eph. 1. Ephesians again, " He hath made him head of the congregation, which
Heb. xi 93. is his body." And to the Hebrews they are all bold to translate : " The
congregation of the first-born," where the apostle nameth "heavenly
Jerusalem, the city of the living God," &c.^
FuLKE, 2. Fulke. In the first English bible printed, where it was
thus translated. Matt. xvi. " Upon this rock I will build
my congregation-," the note in the margin is thus : " Upon
this rock, that is, as saith St Augustine, upon the con-
fession which thou hast made, knowledging me to be Christ,
the Son of the living God, I will build my congregation
or church^!" Was not this translator, think you, sore afraid
of the name of " the church" ? What other thing should he
understand by the word "congregation" in all places by you
noted, or in any like, but the church, as he doth here ex-
pound himself? And this translation, almost word for word,
doth the bible you call 1562 follow.
[} The versions of Tyndale and Cranmer render fKKXrja-ia at Eph, v.
23, 24, 25, "congregation:" those of Wiclif, Geneva, Bishops' bible, and
Authorised, render it "church." And also the same translation of
fKicXria-ia is given by these several versions respectively at 1 Tim.
iii. 15.
Tyndale and Cranmer also translate the word "congregation" at
Ephes. i. 22. : all the other versions render it " church." At Hebrews
xii. 23, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, and the Bishops' bible, have it
"congregation:" WicUf, Rhemish, and Authorised version, "church."]
[^ Tu es Petrus, et supe)' hanc petram (Edificaho ecclesiam meam;
ut super hunc intelligeretur quem confessus est Petrus, dicens, Tu es
Christus films Dei vivi; ac sic Petinis ab hac petra appellatus perso-
nam ecclesiae figuraret, quae super hanc petram sedificatur, et accepit
claves regni coelorum. Non enim dictum est illi, Tu es petra, sed, tu
es Petrus. Petra autem erat Christus; quem confessus Simon, sicut
eum tota ecclesia confitetur, dictus est Petrus. Augusttni Retractio-
num, Lib. i. c. 2L Opera, Vol. i. pp. 67, 68. edit. Bened. Paris. 1836.]
P Matthew's Bible 1537.]
v.] TRANSLATIONS OK THE BIBLE. 227
Martin. So that, by this translation, there is no more church mili- Martin, 3.
tant and triumphant, but congregation, and he is not head of the
church, but of the congregation ; and this congregation, at the time of
the making of this translation, was in a few new brethren of England,
for whose sake the name " church" was left out of the English bible,
to commend the name of " congregation" above the name of " church."
Whereas St Augustine telleth them, that the Jews' synagogue was a inPs. ixxxi.
congregation, the church a convocation ; and that a congregation is of avfaywyij.
beasts also ; a convocation, of reasonable creatures only ; and that the eKK\i}(ria^.
Jews' congregation is sometime called "the church," but the apostles
never called the church " congregation." Do you see then what a
goodly change they have made, for "church" to say "congregation,"
so making themselves a very synagogue, and that by the property of the
Greek word; which yet (as St Augustine telleth them most truly) sig-
nifieth rather a " convocation" ?
FulJce. A strange matter, that the church mihtant and Fulke, 8.
triumphant should be excluded by using the word congre-
gation, when by it nothing is signified but the congregation
or church militant and triumphant ; and that Christ should
no more be head of the chm'ch when he is head of the
congregation, where the difference is only in sound of words,
not in sense or meaning. Your vain and ridiculous surmise,
why the name of church should be left out of the bible, I
have before confuted, shewing that in every bible it is either
in the text, or in the notes. But St Augustine telleth us (say
you) that the Jews' synagogue was a congregation, the
church a convocation ; and that a congregation is of beasts
also, a convocation of reasonable creatures only. But St
Luke in the person of St Stephen telleth us, (and Augustine
telleth us as much,) that the synagogue of the Jews is called
also ecclesia, which signifieth the church and congregation.
[* The LXX. read in the first verse of the eighty-second Psalm,
6 Geo? earri iv (rvvaywyfj 6ewv, which is translated by the Vulgate,
" Deus stetit in synagoga deorum." Upon these words Augustine
speaks as follows: "In synagoga populum Israel acciijimus; quia et
ipsorum proprie synagoga dici solet, quamvis et ecclesia dicta sit.
Nostram vero apostoli nunquam synagogam dixerunt, sed semper
ecclesiam; sive discernendi causa, sive quod inter congregationem
unde synagoga, et convocationem unde ecclesia nomen accepit, distet
aliquid; quod scilicet congregari et pecora solent, atque ipsa proprie,
quorum et greges proprie dicimus ; convocari autem magis est uten-
tium ratione, sicut sunt homines. Augustini Enarratio in Psalmum
Ixxxi. 1.]
15—2
228 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
That congregatio, the Latin word, may be of beasts also, it
skilleth not ; for the church of Christ is called also a flock,
and sheep of his pasture. But he that should say in English
"a congregation of beasts," might be taken for as wise a man,
as he that said "an auchence of sheep." And whereas St Au-
gustine telleth you, that the Jews' .congregation is sometime
called the church ; what is the cause that you do translate
it "the assembly," Acts vii., even as you do "the congregation
oi the idolatrous Ephesians," Acts xix.? But further (you say)
Augustine telleth us, that the apostles never called the church
" congregation." It is a world to see what foolish fetches
you have to deceive the ignorant. Augustine sayeth, the
apostles never called our assembly synagoga, but always
ecclesia : and yet he is a little deceived ; for St Paul calleth
our gathering together unto Christ ewKTwaywyri, but congre-
gatio, " a congregation," he saith not. And although he make
a nice distinction between the words " congregation" and
"convocation," yet aU men which know the use of these words,
will confess no necessity of a Jewish synagogue to be im-
phed in the word "congregation" more than in the word
cKKXijaia, which of the Holy Ghost is used for an assembly or
gathering together, either of Jews, Christians, or Gentiles.
And therefore, it seemeth, the translator used the word "con-
gregation," which is indifferent for all, even as the word
ecclesia is used both in the Greek and vulvar Latin.
Mariin, 4. Martin. If they appeal here to their later translations, we must
obtain of them to condemn the former, and to confess this was a gross
fault committed therein ; and that the catholic church of our country
did not ill to forbid and burn such books which were so translated by
Tyndal and the like, as being not indeed God's book, word, or scripture,
but the devil's word. Yea, they must confess that the leaving out of
this word "church" altogether was of an heretical spirit against the
catholic Roman church, because then they had no Calvinistical church
in any like form of religion and government to theirs now. Neither
will it serve them to say after their manner, " And if a man should trans-
Confut. of late ecclesiam 'congregation,' tlais is no more absurdity, than instead
foi. 35. ' of a Greek word to use a Latin of the same signification." This, we
trow, will not suffice them in the judgment of the simplest indifferent
reader.
FuLKE, 4. Fulke. We need not to appeal to the later transla-
tions for any corruption or falsification of the former, no,
v.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 229
nor for any mistranslation. For seeing the Spirit of God (as
I have said) useth the word ecclesia generally for a com-
pany of Christians, Jews, and Gentiles, the translator hath
not gone from the truth and use of the scriptures, to
use the word " congregation," which signifieth indifferently
all three. Wlierefore there needeth no condemnation, nor
confession of any gross fault herein committed ; except you
will count it a gross fault in St Luke, to use the word
CKKkriaia without any scrupulosity for all three, as the trans-
lator doth the Avord " congregation," and you in two signifi-
cations the word " assembly." Neither can your heathenish
and barbarous burning of the holy scriptures so translated,
nor your blasphemy in calling it the devil's word, be excused
for any fault in translation which you have discovered as
yet, or ever shall be able to descry. That stinking cavil
of leaving out of the bible this word " church" altogether,
being both foohsh and false, I have answered more than
once already. It is not left out altogether, that in con-
tents of books and chapters, and in notes of explication of
this word " congregation V is set down. Neither could there
be any purpose against the catholic church of Christ in
them that translated and taught the creed in English, pro-
fessing to believe " the holy catholic church." As for our
hatred of the mahgnant antichristian church of Rome, we
never dissembled the matter, so that we were afraid openly
to profess it : what need had we then after such a fantas-
tical manner (as is fondly imagined) to insinuate it?
Martin. But, my masters, if you would confess the former faults Martin, 5.
and corruptions never so plainly, is that enough to justify your cornipt
dealing in the holy scriptures ? Is it not an horrible fault so wilfully
to falsify and corrupt the word of God, written by the inspiration of the
Holy Ghost ? May you abuse the people for certain years with false
translations, and afterward say, " Lo, we have amended it in our later
translations" ? Then might the heretic Beza be excused for translating see his New
instead of " Christ's soul in hell," his " carcase in the grave :" and „f the year
because some friend told him of that corruption, and he corrected it in by^o'bert'^
the later editions, he should nevertheless in your judgment be counted a I'^t^u! '^f°''
right honest man. No, be ye sure, the discreet reader cannot be so
abused ; but he will easily see that there is a great difference in mending
some oversights which may escape the best men, and in your gross false
f Congregation. See No. 2.]
230 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
translations, who at the first falsify of a prepensed malice, and afterwards
alter it for very shame. Howbeit, to say the truth, in the chiefest and
principal place, that concerneth the church's perpetuity and stability,
you have not yet altered the former ti'anslation, but it remaineth as before,
Mitt.xvi. 18. and is at this day read in your churches thus, "Upon this rock I will
build my congregation." Can it be without some heretical subtilty,
that in this place specially, and (I think) only, you change not the word
" congregation" into " church" ? Give us a reason, and discharge your
credit.
FuLKE, 5. Fulke. You are very hardly, and In very deed mali-
ciously, bent against us, that you will accept no confession
of faults escaped, never so plainly made. As for corrupt
deahng in the holy scriptures, and falsifying of the word
of God, you are not able, no, not if you would burst your-
self for malice, to convict us. And therefore look for no
confession of any such wickedness, whereof our conscience
is clear before God, and doth not accuse us. As for Beza's
correction of his former translation, Acts ii. 27, if your dogged
stomach will not accept, he shall notwithstanding with all
godly learned men be accounted, as he deserveth, for one
who hath more profited the church of God with his sin-
cere translation and learned annotations, than all the popish
seminaries and seminarists shall be able to hinder it, jangle
of gross and false translations as long as you will. But
"the chiefest and principal place, that concerneth the church's
perpetuity," is not yet reformed to your mind. For in the
bible 1577, we read still, Matt, xvi., " Upon this rock I
will build my congregation." If Christ have a perpetual
congregation, " builded upon the foundation of the prophets
and apostles, himself being the corner-stone," his church is
in no danger ever to decay. Yet you ask, whether it can
be without some heretical subtilty, that in this place spe-
cially, and (as you think) only, the word "congregation" is not
changed into "church." It is an homely, but a true proverb :
The good wife would never have sought her daughter in
the oven, had she not been there first herself. You are
so full of heretical subtilties and traitorous devices, that
you dream of them in other men's doings, whatsoever cometh
into your hands ; yea, where you yourself can have no pro-
bable imagination what to suspect. And therefore we must
give you a reason in discharge of our credit. For my part,
v.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 231
I know not with what special reason the translator was
moved ; but I can give you my probable conjecture, that
he thought it all one, (as indeed it is,) to say " my congre-
gation," or "my church." For what is Christ's congregation,
but his church ? or what is Christ's chm'ch, but liis congre-
gation ? And yet, to put you out of all fear, the Geneva trans-
lation hath the word " church," that you make so great ac-
coimt of, as though it were not an indifferent word to the true
church of true Christians and the false church of mahgnant
heretics ; being usurped first to signify the congregation of
Christians, by a metonymy of the place containing for the
people contained. For the etymology thereof is from the
Greek word KvpiaKti, which was used of Christians for the
place of their holy meetings, signifying "the Lord's house;"
therefore in the northern, which is the more ancient Enghsh
speech, is called by contraction kyrke, more near to the sound
of the Greek word.
Martin. What shall I say of Beza, whom the English bibles also Martin, 6.
follow, translating actively that Greek word, (which iu common use,
and by St Chrysostom, and the Greek doctors' exposition, is a plain
passive,) to signify, as in his annotations is clear, that Christ may be
without his church, that is, a head without a body. The words be these
in the heretical translation : " He gave him to be the head over aU Eph. i. 21. 23.
povftiivov '.
\} The following extract from Beza's New Testament will serve
to explain the matter in dispute in this and the two succeeding num-
bers : "Hrij icTTi TO aafia avrov, to TvXrjpmfia tov irdvTa iv Tracri
TrKrjpoviJLevov. Ephes. i. 23. Rendered by Beza, "Qute est corpus ip-
sius, et complementum ejus qui omnia implet in omnibus:" upon
which he has this note:
Complementum, Trkijpcofia, sive supplementum. Is enim est Christi
in ecclesiam amor, ut quum omnia in omnibus ad plenum praestet,
tamen sese veluti mancum et membris mutilum caput existimet, nisi
ecclesiam habeat sibi instar corporis adjunctam. Hinc factum ut
Christus interdum collective pro tota ecclesia capiti suo adjuncta ac-
cipiatur, ut 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13, et Gal. iii. 16. Hinc etiam illud "in
Christo," toties repetitum; quod multo expressius aliquid significat
quam cum Christo, vel per Christum. Hinc factum ut diceret apo-
stolus se in Christo, et Christum in se vivere, Gal. ii. 20. Hinc ilia
Christi vox, Sauk, Saule, quid me persequeris? Quo etiam pertinet
quod scriptum est, Col. i. 24. Hinc denique nostra spes omnis et
consolatio proficiscitur. Qui implet, tov Trkrjpovpevov. Chrysostomus
passive accipit, ut sit sensus, Christum prorsus impleri in omnibusj
232 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
things to the church, which (church) is his hody, the fulness of him that
fiUeth all in all." " St Chrysostom," saith Beza, (he might have said, all
the Greek and Latin ancient fathers,) "taketh it passively in this sense,
that Christ is ' filled ' all in all, because all faithful men as members,
and the v^^hole church as the body, concur to the fulness and accomplish-
ment of Christ the head. But this," saith he, "seemeth unto me a
forced interpretation." Why so, Beza ?
FuLKE, 6. Fulke. That Beza translateth the participle, rov ttXt]-
povfxevov, actively, it is plain, both in the text of his transla-
tion, and in his annotations : but that he doth it to signify,
that Christ may be Avithout his church, that is, a head with-
out a body, it is a shameless slander. His words, upon
which you weave this cobweb, are these : Omnino autem
hoc addidit apostolus, ut sciamus Christum per se non indi-
gere hoc supplemento, ut qui efficiat omnia in omnibus revera ;
nedum ut suppleatur a quoquam, nisi quatenus pro immensa
sua honitate ecclesiam dignatur sihi quasi corporis instar
adjungere. " This the apostle hath added altogether for this
end, that we may know that Christ of himself hath no need
of this supply, as he Avliich worketh in truth ' all tilings
in all ;' so far it is, that he should be supphed by any body,
but that of his infinite goodness he vouchsafeth to adjoin
his church unto liimself as his body." Wlio but the devil
would find fault with this godly and cathohc saying ? wherein
it is affirmed, that Christ, which according to the perfec-
tion of his divine nature needeth no supply, yet of his in-
finite mercy vouchsafeth to become head of his church, as
of liis body ; so that he will not be counted perfect with-
out it. Is this to say, Christ may be a head without a
body ? or is it for his benefit, or the benefit of his church,
that he is the head thereof? But the more to lay open
this mahcious slander and impudent falsifying of Beza's
words and meaning, I will set down his saying, going im-
id est, singulos fideles conferre ad Christi complementum, uti corpus
ipsum ex singulis membris est compactum. Mihi videtur coacta ista
interpretatio, [qui potius active istud accipio, edit. 1582, p. 231.] quum
TO 7r\r]povar6ai pro nXripovv Xenophon usurparit. Lib. vi. Hellen. et
a-vfiirXripova-dai pro crvjjiTrXrjpovv Plato in Timseo. Omnino autem hoc
addidit apostolus, ut sciamus Christum per se non indigere hoc sup-
plemento, ut qui efficiat omnia in omnibus revera; nedum ut sup-
pleatur a quoquam, nisi quatenus pro immensa sua bonitate ecclesiam
dignatur sibi quasi corporis instar adjungere. Edit. 1556, p. 249.]
V.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 233
mediately before, upon the word vrX^pcajULa, Avhich he calleth
complementum sive supplementum, " a fulfilling or supplying :"
Is enim est Christi in ecclesiam amor, &c. " For such is the
love of Christ toward his church, that whereas he performeth
all things to all men unto the full ; yet he esteemeth him-
self as an unperfect head, and maimed of the members, unless
he have his church adjoined to him, as his body. Hereof it
Cometh, that Christ is taken sometime collectively for the whole
church, adjoined to her head, as 1 Cor. xii, 12, 13, and Gal. iii.
16. Hereof cometh also that phrase ' in Christ,' so often re-
peated, which signifieth something more expressly than with
Christ, or by Christ. Hereof that voice of Christ, ' Saul,
Saul, why dost thou persecute me ?' Wliither also pertaineth
that which is written, Col. i. 24. Finally, hereof proceedeth
all our hope and consolation." How think you ? is not this
man willing to separate the church from Christ, the head
from the body ? 0 monstrous malices of godless papists !
His exposition of the place being such, as you see, let us
now examine what can be said against his translation : for a
man must not translate falsely to make a true sense. It
is alleged against him, that Chrysostom and all the Greek
and Latin fathers take the participle passively. Beza con-
fesseth it of Chrysostom, whom the later Greek writers
commonly do follow. But the participle, being derived of
the mean verb, may have either passive or active signifi-
cation. But why doth Beza say, that the exposition of
Chrysostom is " forced," which taketh it passively? He saith
not in respect of Chrys ostein's sense, which he liimself fol-
loweth, and it is contained in the word TrXtjpwfxa, but in
respect of the grammar, that Travra should be put abso-
lutely without any word to govern it, seeing the participle
of the mean verb may be taken actively, and govern irdvra,
being the accusative case.
Martin. Mark his doctors whom he opposeth to the fathers, both Martin, 7.
Greek and Latin. " Because Xenophon" saith he, " in such a place, and
Plato in such a place, use the said Greek word actively." I omit this
miserable match, and unworthy names of Xenophon and Plato, in trial
of St Paul's words, against all the glorious doctors ; this is liis common
custom. I ask him rather of these his own doctors, how they use the
Greek word in other places of their works ? how use they it most com-
monly ? yea, how do all other Greek writers, either profane or sacred.
234 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
use it ? What say the Greek readers of all universities ? Surely, not
only they, but their scholars for the most part, cannot be ignorant, that
Tr\}ipov- the use of this word and the like is passive, though sometime it may
'"" * also signify actively : but that is so rare in comparison of the other, that
no man lightly will use it ; and I am well assured it would be counted
a fault, and some lack of skill, if one now in his writings that would
express this in Greek, " God filletli all things with his blessing," should
say, tArjpovTai. Tvavra : and, " The wine filleth the cup," o oivos irkrjpov-
TM TO noTTjpiov. Ask them that have skill, and control me. Contrariwise,
if one would say passively, " All things are filled with God's blessing,"
" The cup is filled with wine," " Such a prophecy is fulfilled ;" what
mean Grecian would not say, as St Chrysostom here exi)Oundeth this
word, TvXrjpovTai, using it passively ?
FuLKE, 7. FulJce. Mark how malice carrieth this man ahuost into
madness. For who but a madman would think, that Beza
opposeth profane writers to ecclesiastical doctors for un-
derstanding of the scripture? The mean verb TrXtipovfiai,
which the meanest grammarian in the Avorld knoweth to be
taken both actively and passively by the grammar rule Be
mrho medio, Beza proveth out of Xenophon and Plato that
it is and may be used actively. Wliy not therefore in this
place of St Paul, where both the sense requireth it, that one
tiling be not repeated twice without necessary cause, and the
construction of the word iravTa calleth for it, which other-
wise is left at random without any government? Seeing
therefore we have the common rule of grammar, and the
example of eloquent writers for use, I marvel what M. Martin
meaneth to waste so many words about so clear a matter.
No man that knoweth any thing doubteth, but that ifKrjpoviiaL
may be, and is often, taken passively : but seeing it is also
found to be a verb mean, who need to be afraid to use it
actively (having Xenophon and Plato for his warrant), yea,
even in those examples you put, of God's blessing Hlhug all
things, or the wine filhng the cup, if any man would speak
so. But if, because the word is more usually taken passively,
men would refrain so to speak ; yet why should we think that
St Paul did not use it actively ? when the active signification
is more agreeable, both with liis words and with his meaning.
But lest you should think Beza is alone, which taketh it
actively, what say you to Phihppus Montanus, one of your
own profession ? which in his animadversions upon Theophy-
lact's translation, by him corrected, saith upon this place:
v.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 235
TrXrjpoufxevou qui adimplet, vel adimplefur, mrbum enim est
medium, passive autem mdetur accipere Theophylactus: "Wliich
fiUeth, or which is filled ; for it is a verb of indiiferent
signification, active or passive, but Theophylact seemeth to
take it passively." What say you to Isidorus Clarius, who
although in liis text he readeth passively, yet in his note
confesseth it may be taken either passively or actively ?
For this is his note : Plenitudo ejus'\ per omnia enim memhra
adimpletur corpus Christi, quia omnia in omnibus implet, dum
ipse agit in omnibus, ml per omnes hojnines hwc implet membra.
Site plenitudinem et complementum omne suum liabet ipsa
ecclesia ab illo, quia omnia in omnibus adimplet^: "That is the
fulness of him] for by all the members the body of Christ
is filled, because he fiUeth all in all, while he worketh in
all, or throughout all men fiUeth these members. Or else,
the church herself hath all her fulness and accomplishment
of him, which filleth all in all." These men, both papists,
were as good Grecians (I warrant you) as M. Gregory Martin
is, or ever will be ; by whom if he will not be controlled,
it were folly to press him with the judgment of our " Greek
readers," which he requireth.
Martin. "Yet," saith Beza, "this is a forced interpretation, because MAimx, 8.
Xenophon foreooth and Plato," once perhaps in all their whole works,
" use it otherwise." Oh, heretical blindness, or rather stubbornness, that
calleth that forced, which is most common and usual ; and seeth not that
his ovna. translation is forced, because it is against the common use of
the word ! But no marvel : for he that in other places thinketh it no
forced interpretation to translate he^aa-Qai " to be contained," which Becipere.
neither Xenophon nor Plato nor any Greek author will allow him to
do, and ^vx')^ "carcase," and Trpoyvcocnv "providence," and fieravoiw Amrrnim.
" them that amend their lives," may much more in this place dissemble tiam!
his forced inteiin-etation of ireivKripovfi^vov. But why he should call St tiam."*^"'
Chrysostom's interpretation forced, which is the common and usual in-
terpretation, that hath no more reason than if a very thief should say
to an honest man, " Thou art a thief, and not I."
Fulke. I have shewed how it is enforced, because m Fulke, 8^
taking the participle passively you must either be enforced
to admit a plain solecism, where none needeth ; or else yon
must hardly understand the preposition Kara to govern the
accusative Trdvra, as Montanus telleth you m Theophylact,,
[} Critici Sacvi, Vol. vii. Pars ii. p. 98.]
236 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
and as CEcumenius doth, and the sense will be no more
than is contained in the word complementum : whereas by
taking it actively, the wonderful goodness of Christ shineth
toward his church ; who although he needeth nothing to
make him perfect, as Chiysostom saith, but suppheth " all
things in all things," yet it is his gracious pleasure to account
himself imperfect without his church, which he hath united
to him as his body, in which he is not perfect without all
his members.
As for your vain and tedious repetition, hke the cuckoo's
song, of Beza's misprisions, I will not stand so often to an-
swer, as you are disposed to rehearse them : only I must
admonish the reader of a piece of your cunning, that in
repeating the participle you change the tense, and for
•rrXtjpovinei'ov you say TreTrX^povfjievov, as though it were
the preterperfect tense, which cannot be taken but only
passively. I know the printer shall bear the blame of this
oversight, but in the mean time it maketh a little shew
to a young Grecian, that considereth it not.
Martin, 9. Martin. Is it forced, Beza, that Christ " is filled all in all" by the
church ? Doth not St Paul in the very next words before call the church
Eph. i. the fulness of Christ, saying, " \'VTiich is the fulness of him that is filled
all in all" ? If the church be the fulness of him, then is he filled or
hath his fulness of the church, so that he is not a maimed head without
a body. This would St Paul say, if you would give him leave ; and this
he doth say, whether you will or no. But what is the cause that they
will not suffer the apostle to say so? "Because," saith Beza, "Christ
needeth no such complement." And if he needeth it not, then may he
be without a church, and consequently it is no absurdity, if the church
hath been for many years not only invisible, but also not at all. Would
a man easily at the first imagine or conceive, that there were such secret
poison in their translation ?
FuLKE,9. FulJce. You should urge Beza with a Latin epistle,
seeing you are so earnest in the matter. I have told you
that the sense of Chrysostom is true, but not flowing easily
from the words of St Paul. That Christ hath his fulness
of the church, it is granted by Beza upon the word plenitudo
or complementum, as you cannot be ignorant, if you have
read Beza's annotations, as you pretend. But you charge
Beza to say, that "Christ needeth no such complement." Beza's
words are, as I have set them down before, ut sciamus
v.] TRANSLATIONS OP THE BIBLE. 237
Christum per se non indigere hoc supplemento, " that we may-
know that Christ of himself needeth not this supply." Is
this all one with that you report him to say ? No, his
saying was too long for your thievish bed, and therefore you
cut o^ per se, "of himself," or " by himself." What say you?
Dare you affirm that Christ of himself, in respect of his divine
nature, hath need of any complement ? That Christ hath
had always a church since the beginning of the Avorld, and
shall have to the end, Beza doth plainly in an hundi'ed places
confess : neither can it be otherwise proved by this trans-
lation, nor yet by Beza's words "that Christ of himself is
perfect and needeth no supply," but that it pleaseth him to
become the head of the church, as of his body; which his
divine and merciful pleasure seemg it is immutable, Christ
cannot be without his church, nor the church without him.
Yea, as Beza in plain words affirmeth, this is " our whole hope
and consolation," that Christ esteemeth himself an unperfect
head, and maimed of his members, except he have his church
adjoined to him as his body.
Martin. Again, it cometh from the same puddle of Geneva, that in Martin,
their bibles (so called) the English Bezites translate against the unity of
the catholic church. For whereas themselves are full of sects and dis- ^'^" '^^^'
sensions, and the true church is knowm by unity, and hath this mark
given her by Christ himself, in whose person Salomon speaking saith,
Una est columba mea, that is, " One is my dove," or, " My dove is one ;" cant. vi. 8.
therefore instead hereof the foresaid bible saith, " My dove is alone ;" '^'" *
neither Hebrew nor Greek word having that signification, but being as ^'J.
proper to signify one, as unus in Latin.
FulJce. He that hath any nose may smell that this cen- Fulkb,
sure cometh from the stinking puddle of popish malice. For ^^'
he that saith "my dove is alone," Cant. vi. 8, doth a great deal
more strongly avouch the unity of the church, than he that
sayeth " my dove is one." For whereas Salomon sayeth in
the verse going immediately before, " There are threescore
queens, and fourscore concubines, and of the damsels without
p Mt'a eVri irepia-Tepd fiov. Canticles vi. 8. " Una est columba
mea," Vulg. "One is my dove, one is my darling," Cranmer 1562,
Bishops' bible. *' My dove, my undefiled is but one ; she is the only
one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her," Au-
thorised version. "My dove is alone," Geneva, 1560.]
238
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
b
number ;"" if you add thereto " my dove is one," it may be
thought she is one of those last mentioned. But if you say,
as the Geneva bible doth, but " my dove is alone, and my
undefiled is the only daughter of her mother ;" now the
church is excepted from all the rest of the queens, concu-
bines, and damsels. And where you say, the Hebrew hath
not that signification, I pray you go no further but even to
the same verse, and tell me whether the sense be, that she
is one of her mother's daughters, or the only daughter of
her mother ? Here therefore (as almost everywhere) you
do nothing, but seek a knot in a rush.
Martin,
11.
FULKE,
11.
Martin. But we beseech every indifferent reader, even for his soul's
health, to consider that one point specially before mentioned, of their
abandoning the name of " church" for so many years out of their Enghsh
bibles, thereby to defeat the strongest argument that might and may
possibly be brought against them and aU other heretics; to wit, the
authority of the church, which is so many ways and so greatly recom-
mended unto all Christians in holy scriptures. Consider, I pray you,
what a maUcious intention they had herein: first, that the name
" church" should never sound in the common people's ears out of the
scriptures ; secondly, that as in other things, so in this also, it might
seem to the ignorant a good argument against the authority of the
church to say, " We find not this Avord ' church' in all the holy scrip-
tures." For as iu other articles they say so, because they find not the
express word in the holy scripture ; so did they well provide, that the
word " church" in the holy scriptures should not stay or hinder their
schismatical and heretical proceedings, as long as that was the only
Enghsh translation that was read and hked among the people ; that is,
so long till they had by preaching taken away the cathoUc church's
credit and authority altogether among the ignorant, by opposing the
scriptures thereunto which themselves had thus falsely translated.
Fulke. We trust every indiiferent reader will consider,
that they which translated the Greek word ecclesia, "the con-
gregation," and admonished in the notes that they did by
that word mean " the church ;" and they which in the creed
might have translated ecclesiam catholicam, " the universal con-
gregation," taught all children to say, " I believe the cathoUc
church," could have no such devilish meaning as this mahcious
slanderer of his own head doth imagine. For who ever
heard any man reason thus : This word "church" is not found
in the scripture, therefore the church must be despised, &c. ?
Rather it is like (beside other reasons before alleged) that
v.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 239
those first translators, having in the Old Testament out of the
Hebrew translated the words caJial hadath, and such other for
" the congregation" (where the papists will not translate "the
church," although their Latin text be ecclesia, as appeareth
Acts vii., where they call it "assembly"), thought good to retain
the word "congregation" throughout the New Testament also,
lest it might be thought of the ignorant, that God had no
church in the time of the Old Testament. Howsoever it
was, they departed neither from the word nor meaning of
the Holy Ghost, nor from the usage of that word ecclesia^
which in the scripture signifieth as generally any assembly,
as the word "congregation" doth in English.
240 A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH [CH.
CHAPTER VI.
Heretical Translation against Priest and Priesthood.
Mariin, 1. Martin. But because it may be, they will stand here upon their
later translations which have the name "church," (because by that
time they saw the absurdity of changing the name, and now their num-
ber was increased, and themselves began to challenge to be the true
church, though not the catholic ; and for former times when they were
not, they devised an invisible church ;) if then they will stand upon
their later translations, and refuse to j ustify the former ; let us demand
of them concerning all their English translations, why and to what end
they suppress the name "priest," translating it "elder" in all places
where the holy scripture would signify by presbyter and presbyterium the
"priests" and "priesthood" of the New Testament?
FuLKE, 1. Fulke. If any error have escaped the former transla-
tions, that hath been reformed in the later, aU reasonable
men ought to be satisfied with om* own corrections. But
because we are not charged with oversights and small faults
committed either of ignorance or of negligence, but with
shameless translations, wilful and heretical corruptions, we
may not acknowledge any such crimes whereof our conscience
is clear. That we " devised an invisible church," because we
were few in number, when om* translations were first printed,
it is a lewd slander. For being multiphed, as we are, (God
be thanked !) we hold still that the catholic church, which is
the mother of us all, is invisible, and that the church on
earth may at some times be driven into such straits, as
of the wicked it shall not be known. And this we held
always, and not otherwise. Now touching the word pres-
hyter and presbyterium, why we translate them not " priest
and priesthood of the New Testament," we have given suf-
ficient reason before : but because we are here urged afresh,
we must answer as occasion shall be offered.
Martin, 2. Martin. Understand, gentle reader, their wily policy therein is this:
to take away the holy sacrifice of the mass, they take away both altar
and priest ; because they know right well that these three, priest, sacri-
fice, and altar, are dependents and consequents one of another, so that
they cannot be separated. If there be an external sacrifice, there must
be an external priesthood to offer it, an altar to offer the same upon.
VI. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 241
So had the Gentiles their sacrifices, priests, and altars; so had the Jews;
so Christ himself, being a priest according to the order of Melchisedec,
had a sacrifice, hjs body; and an altar, his cross, upon the which he
oiFered it. And because he instituted this sacrifice to continue in his
church for ever, in commemoration and representation of his death,
therefore did he withal ordain his apostles priests at his last supper,
there and then instituted the holy order of priesthood and priests (saying,
Hoc facite, " Do this,") to offer the self-same sacrifice in a mystical and LukexxU.
unbloody manner, until the world's end.
FulJce. In denying the blasphemous sacrifice of the Fulke, 2,
popish mass, with the altar and priesthood that thereto be-
longeth, we use no wily policy, but with open mouth at all
times, and in all places, we cry out upon it. The sacrifices,
priests, and altars of the gentiles were abominable. The
sacrifices of the Jews, their priests, and altars, are all accom-
phshed and finished in the only sacrifice of Christ, our high
priest, offered once for all upon the altar of the cross :
which Christ our Saviour, seeing he is a priest according
to the order of Melchisedec, hath an eternal priesthood,
and such as passeth not by succession, Heb. vii. Therefore
did not Christ at his last supper institute any external pro-
pitiatory sacrifice of his body and blood, but a sacrament,
joined with the spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving :
which sacrament being administered by the ministers thereto
appointed, the sacrifice is common to the whole church of
the faithful, who are all spiritual priests, to offer up spiritual
sacrifices, as much as the minister of the word and sa-
craments.
Martin. To defeat all this, and to take away all external priesthood Martin, 2.
and sacrifice, they by corrupt translation of the holy scriptures make
them clean dumb, as though they had not a word of any such priests,
or priesthood, as we speak of. Their bibles, we grant, have the name
of priests very often, but that is when mention is made either of the
priests of the Jews, or of the priests of the Gentiles (specially when
they are reprehended and blamed in the holy scriptures) ; and in such
places our adversaries have the name " priests" in their translations, to
make the very name of " priest" odious among the common ignorant
people. Again, they have also the name " priests," when they are taken
for all manner of men, women, or children, that offer internal and
spiritual sacrifices ; whereby our adversaries would falsely signify that
there are no other priests, as one of them late freshly avoucheth, directly whitaker's.
against St Augustine, who in one brief sentence distinguisheth priests *'' ^"
[fulke. J
242 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
properly so called in the church, and priests as it is a common name
to all Christians. Lib. xx. de Civit. Dei, cap. 10.^ This name then of
"priest" and "priesthood" properly so called, as St Augustine saith,
which is an order distinct from the laity and vulgar people, ordained to
offer Christ in an unbloody manner in sacrifice to his heavenly Father
for us, to preach and minister the sacraments, and to be the pastors of
the people, they wholly suppress in their translations ; and in all places
where the holy scripture calleth them presbyteros, there they never
translate "priests," but "elders." And that they do observe so duly and
See the Puri- so warily, and with so full and general consent in all their English bibles,
p. 159, and' as the puritaus do plainly confess, and M. Whitgift denieth it not, that a
i>efence * man would wonder to see, how careful they are that the people may not
i^ritans p o^ce hear the name of any such " priest " in all the holy scriptures.
722.
FuLKE, 3. Fulke. Now you have gotten a fine net to dance naked
in, that no ignorant bhnd buzzard can see you. The masks
of your net be the ambiguous and abusive significations of
this word "priest"; which indeed, according to the original deri-
vation from presbyter, should signify nothing else but an
" elder," as we translate it, that is, one appointed to govern
the church of God according to his word, but not to offer
sacrifice for the quick and the dead. But by usurpation it
is commonly taken to signify a sacrificer, such as lepev^ is
in Greek, and sacerdos in Latin ; by which names the minis-
ters of the gospel are never called by the Holy Ghost.
After this common acceptation and use of this word "priest,"
we call the sacrificers of the Old Testament, and of the gen-
tiles also, because the scripture calleth them by one name,
cohanin, or 'lepel^ : but because the scripture calleth the minis-
ters of the New Testament by divers other names, and never
by the name of 'lepelst we thought it necessary to observe
that distinction which we see the Holy Ghost so precisely
hath observed. Therefore, where the scripture calleth them
irpecr^vrepov^, we call them, according to the etymology,
"elders," and not priests : which word is taken up by common
usurpation to signify sacrificers of Jews, gentiles, or papists,
\} Quod autem cum dixisset. In istis secunda mors non habet potestatem ;
adjunxit atque ait, Sed erunt sacerdotes Deiet Christi, et regnabunt cum eo
mille annis : non utique de solis episcopis et presbyteris dictum est, qui
proprie jam vocantur in ecclesia sacerdotes ; sed sicut omnes Christianos
dicimus propter mysticum chrisma, sic omnes sacerdotes, quoniam mem-
bra sunt unius Sacerdotis. Augustin. de Civitat. Dei. Lib. xx. c. 10.
Opera. Vol, vi. p. 944.]
VI.J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE, 243
or else all Christians in respect of spiritual sacrifices. And
although Augustine, and other of the ancient fathers, call the
ministers of the New Testament by the name of sacerdotes,
and lepeh, which signify the ministers of the Old Testament ;
yet the authority of the Holy Ghost, making a perfect dis-
tinction between these two appellations and functions, ought
to be of more estimation with us. The fathers were content
to speak in Latin and Greek, as the terms were taken up
by the common people newly converted from gentihty ; but
yet they retained the difference of the sacrificing priesthood
of the one, and the ministerial office of the other. This
may suffice therefore to render a reason, why we use not
the word "priest" for "ministers" of the New Testament : not
that we refuse it in respect of the etymology, but in respect
of the use and common signification thereof.
Martin. As for example in their translations, when there fell a Martin, 4.
question about circumcision, " They determined that Paul and Barnabas irpea-^vTe.
should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this ^resbyteros.
question." Acts xv^ And again, " They were received of the congrega-
[^ In Acts XV. 4, Ta>v anocTTuXcov Koi tcov Trpea^vrepaiv is ren-
dered, in the Vulgate, "ab apostolis et senioribus:" also, in verses
20, 22, 23. In verse 41, seniorum is used, though there is not any
corresponding clause in the Greek. See also chap. xvi. 4.
irpos Tovs aTToa-ToKovs Koi Trpta-^vrtpovs, Acts XV. 2, is rendered
thus in the different versions: "To the apostolis and preestis,"
Wiclif, 1380. ''To the apostles and elders," Tyndale, Cranmer,
Geneva, and Authorised.
aTre8€x6Tj(Tav imo r^j eKKXrjcrlas koX rwv aTToaroKav koi twv npecr-
^vTfpcov. Acts XV. 4. " They werun resceyued of the chirche, and of
the apostlis, and of the elder men," Wiclif. "They were received of
the congregation, and of the apostles and elders," Tyndale, Cranmer.
"They were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders,"
Geneva version, and Authorised.
2u»'>;;^^j;o-ai' 5e ol tiTrocrroXot koi ol npfo-^vTepoi. Acts XV. 6. " And
the apostlis and elder men camen 'togidre," Wiclif. "And the apo-
stles and elders came together," Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Autho-
rised. "And the apostles and ancients assembled," Rhemish version.
Tore ebo^e toIs dTro(TT6Kois Koi rots irpea-^VTepois <tvv oXtj rfj tK-
K\T](ria. Acts XV. 22. "Thanne it plesid to the apostles and to the
elder men with alle the chirche," WicUf. "Then pleased it the
apostles and elders with the whole congregation," Tyndale, Cranmer.
" Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church,"
Geneva, Authorised version. Ol
16—2
244 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
* The later tioii,* and of the apostles and elders." Again, " The apostles and elders
"church." came together to reason of this matter." Again, " Then pleased it the
apostles and elders with the whole congregation to send," &c. Again,
" The apostles and elders send greeting," &c. Again, " They delivered
them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and
Acu xvi. elders." If in all these places they had translated " priests," as indeed
they should have done according to the Greek word, it had then disad-
vantaged them this much, that men would have thought both the dignity
of priests to be great, and also their authority in councils, as being here
joined with the apostles, to be greatly reverenced and obeyed. To keep
the people from all such holy and reverent cogitations of priests, they
put " elders," a name wherewith our holy christian forefathers' ears were
never acquainted in that sense.
FuLKE, 4. FuTke. In all those places by you rehearsed, Acts xv.
and xvi., your own vulgar Latin text hath senior es, which you
had rather call " ancients" (as the French Protestants call the
governors of their churches,) than " elders," as we do. That
popish priests should have any dignity or authority in
councils, we do flatly deny : but that the seniors, ancients,
elders, or priests (if you will) of the New Testament, should
have as much dignity and authority as God's word doth
afford them, we desire with all our hearts. That " our christian
forefathers' ears were not acquainted with the name of ' elders,' "
it was because the name of priest in their time sounded ac-
cording to the etymology, and not according to the cor-
ruption of the papists: otherwise I think their ears were
as much acquainted with the name of " elders," which we use,
as with the name of " ancients," and " seniors," that you
have newly taken up, not for that they differ in signification
from elders, but because you would differ from us.
Ot oTTooToXoi KOI 01 TTpecT^iiTfpoi KOI ol abeX<pol rots Kara rfju
'AvTioxfiav Koi 2vpiav x"'/'^'"- Acts xv. 23. " ApostHs and elder
britheren," Wiclif. "The apostles, elders and brethren, send greet-
ings," Tyndale, Cranmer. "The apostles and the elders and the bre-
thren send greetings," Geneva. " The apostles and elders and brethren,"
Authorised version.
■TTapedidovv avrois (pyXaaaeiv ra Soyixara ra K(Kpip.eva vnb rau
dnocTToXojv Koi tmv Tvpea-fdvrepMV tcov iv 'lepovaaXijfj.. Acts xvi. 4.
" They delivered them the decrees for to keep ordained of the apo-
stles and elders," Tyndale, Geneva. "They dehvered them the de-
crees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders,"
Cranmer, Authorised version.]
VI. J TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 245
Martin. But let us go forward. We have heard often and of old Martin, 5.
time, of making of priests ; and of late years also, of making ministers ;
but did ye ever hear in all England of making "elders" ? Yet by these
men's translations it hath been in England a phrase of scripture this
thirty year; but it must needs be very strange, that this making of
"elders" hath not all this while been practised and known, no, not among
themselves in any of their churches within the realm of England. To
Titus they make the apostle say thus : " For this cause left I thee in Tit. i.
Creta, that thou shouldst ordain elders in every city," &c. Again, of
Paul and Barnabas : " When they had ordained elders by election in tous irpec-
eveiy congregation." Acts xiv.^ If they had said plainly, as it is in the pr^byteros.
Greek, and as our forefathers were wont to speak, and the truth is, Bib.an.i562.
" Titus was left in Creta to ordain priests in every city ;" and, " Paxil
and Barnabas made priests in every church ;" then the people would
have understood them : they know such speeches of old, and it had been
their joy and comfort to hear it specified in holy scriptures. Now they
are told another thing, in such newness of speeches and words, of " elders"
to be made in every city and congregation, and yet not one city nor
congregation to have any elders in all England, that we know not what
is profane novelty of words, which the apostle willeth to be avoided, if i Tim. vi.
this be not an exceeding profane novelty. •
Fulke. When you have gotten a bauble, you make more Fulke, 6.
of it than of the Tower of London; for you have never done
playing with it. It must needs be a clerkly argument that
is drawn from the vulgar speeches of "making priests," and
"making nmiisters." Those priests or ministers that are made
among us, are the same " elders" that the scripture in Greek
calleth Trpe(x(ivTepovs, and the bishop's letters of orders, testi-
fying of their ordination, caU them by none other name, but
by the name of presbyteri, wliich the scripture useth : which
term though in Enghsh you sound it priests, elders, ancients,
seniors, or ministers, wliich is the common people's word,
p KOI KaTacrrrjCTTjs Kara ttoXiv npta-^vTepovs. Titus i. 6. " And
ordeyne preetis by citees," Wiclif. "And shouldest ordain elders in
every city," Tyndale, Cranmer, 1639, 1662, Bishops' bible, 1614,
Geneva ; Authorised version.
XfipoTovqa-avTfs 8e avTo7s Trpea-^vrepovs kot fKKkT](riav. Acts xiv. 23.
"Et cum constituissent illis per singulas ecclesias presbyteros," Vulg.
V. 22. "And whanne thei hadden ordeyned preestis to him hi alle
citees," Wiclif. "And when they had ordained them elders by elec-
tion in every congregation," Tyndale, Cranmer. "And when they
had ordained them elders by election in every church," Geneva.
"And when they had ordained them elders in every church," Au-
thorised version.]
246 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
it is the same office which is described by the Holy Ghost,
Tit. i., and in other places of scripture. As for the "profane
novelty, " wherewith this word " elder" is changed, we will con-
sider of it in the next section.
Martin 6. Martin. That it is novelty to all English christian ears, it is evident.
And it is also profane, because they do so English the Greek word of
veipoTo- ordaining (for of the word presbyter we will speak more anon), as if
veiv. they should translate Demosthenes or the laws of Athens concerning
their choosing of magistrates, which was by giving voices with lifting
up their hands. So they do force this word here, to induce the people's
election; and yet in their churches in England the people elect not
Xfi-poTovn- ministers, but their bishop. Whereas the holy scripture saith, they
<raj/T«s ordained to the people ; and whatsoever force the word hath, it is here
spoken of the apostles, and pertaineth not to the people ; and therefore
KaTaarr,- in the place to Titus it is another word which cannot be forced further
5ij"''j than to " ordain and appoint." And they might know, if malice and
heresy would suffer them to see and confess it, that the holy scriptures,
and fathers, and ecclesiastical custom, hath drawn this and the like
words from their profane and common signification to a more peculiar
and ecclesiastical speech: as episcopus, an "overseer" in Tully, is a
"bishop" in the New Testament.
FuLKE, 6. Fulke. The name " elders," used in our translation, is
neither more novel to Enghsh ears, nor more profane to
godly ears, than the name " ancients," which your translation
useth. And yet I think the apostle, 1 Tim, vi., spake not
of novelty to EngUsh ears, but of that which was new to
the ears of the church of God. But the word " elders" (I
ween) must be profane, because we "English the Greek word
of ordaining, as if we should translate Demosthenes or the
laws of Athens concerning the choosing of magistrates." Doth
not tliis cavil redound more against the Holy Ghost, to accuse
his style of profaneness, which useth the same words for the
ordering of priests, that Demosthenes or the laws of Athens
p XeipoTOV7](TavTfs 8e avTois irpea^vTepovs Kar eKKkrjaiav. Acts xiv. 23.
"And when they had ordained them elders by election in every
congregation," Tyndale, Cranmer. "In every church," Bishops'
bible, Geneva, Authorised version. " Priests in every church," Rhemish
version.
Kai KaTa(TTq<Tr]s Kara ttoXiv Trpecr^vTepovs. Titus i. 5. " Ordain
ciders," all the versions, except the Rhemish, which has, "Ordain
priests."]
Vl.j TRANSLATIONS OF THK BIBLE. 247
might use for choosing of their magistrates ? But this word
we " enforce (you say) to induce the people's election, and yet
the bishop, not the people, elect our ministers." We mean not
to enforce any other election than the word doth signify.
Neither doth our bishops (if they do well) ordain any ministers
or priests without the testimony of the people, or at least-
wise, of such as be of most credit where they are known.
Where you urge the pronoun avTo1<i, " to them," as though the
people gave no consent nor testimony, it is more than ridicu-
lous; and beside that, contrary to the practice of the primitive
church for many hundred years after the apostles ; as also
that you would enforce upon the words KaTaarfjaat, used by
St Paul, Tit. i., as though that word of "constitution" did ex-
clude election. That the word yeiporov'ia by the fathers of
the church since the apostles hath been drawn to other signi-
fication than it had before, it is no reason to teach us how
it was used by the apostles. Election is an indifferent thing :
the election of bishops, elders, or priests, is an holy thing,
the hohness whereof is not included in the word -^eipoTovelv,
but in the holy institution of Christ, and authority by his
appointment delivered by imposition of the hands of the
eldership.
Martin. And concerning x^'P"''''"^'"' which we now speak of, St. Martin,?.
Jerome^ teileth them in chap. Iviii. Esai. that it signifieth c/mcorwm Greg. Nazian.
ordinationem, that is, " giving of holy orders," which is done not only j 4 g ?nf^d
by prayer of the voice, but by imposition of the hand, according to St ti" "^"u
Paul unto Timothy, manus cito nemini imposueris, " Impose or put hands po^ vVipo-
quickly on no man :" that is, be not hasty or easy to give holy orders, joviav, and
Where these great etymologists, that so strain the original nature of this IZ^'^poTo-^
word to profane stretching forth the hand in elections, may learn 1/1)6);. ignat.
another ecclesiastical etymology thereof, as proper and as well deduced o/'bishmis,
of the word as the other, to wit, putting forth the hand to give orders ; /^«'^'^'5f"'-
.1 I'll ""'' 'fpoi'/O-
and so they shall find it is all one with that which the apostle calleth yovai, x"-
" imposition of hands," 1 Tim. iv. 2 Tim. i. ; and consequently, for poTovov<7i,
P Plerique nostrorum xf*P'''''<'J'''a»'> id est, ordinationem clericorum,
quse non solum ad imprecationem vocis, sed ad impositionem impletur
manus; ne scilicet, ut in quibusdam risimus, vocis imprecatio clan-
destina clericos ordinet nescientes. Comment. Hieronymi in Isaise
c. Iviii. Opera, Vol. iii. p. 432.]
[3 Gregor. Nazian. Edit. Paris. Morell. 1630. 1. 6. 7. The titles
quoted are from 1 and 7.]
248 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
TO van. "ordaining elders by election/' they should have said, "ordaining or
er'/yeo-iT"' ™^king priests by imposition of hands ;" as elsewhere St Paul, 1 Tim. v.
Twv xe*- and the Acts of the Apostles, Acts vi. and xiii., do speak in the ordain-
'"""■ ing of the seven deacons, and of St Paul and Barnabas.
FuLKE, 7. FulJce. The testimony of St Jerome, whom you cite.
In isai. iviii. jQu understand not ; for speaking there of the extension of
the finger, which the Septuaginta translate -^^eiporoviav, " and
God requireth to be taken away," he saith : " Many of our
interpreters do understand it of the ordination of clerks,
which is performed not only at the imprecation of voice, but
also at the imposition of hands, lest (as we have laughed at
in some men) the secret imprecation of the voice should
ordain clerks, being ignorant thereof," And so proceedeth
to inveigh against the abuse of them that would ordain clerks
of their basest officers and servitors, yea, at the request of
fooHsh women. By wliich it is manifest, that his purpose is
not to teU what -^eipoTovla properly doth signify, but that
imposition of hands is required in lawful ordination, which
many did understand by the word -^^eipoTovia, although in
that place it signified no such matter. And therefore you
must seek further authority to prove your ecclesiastical
etymology, that -^eiporovia signifieth putting forth of the
hands to give orders. The places you quote in the margin,
out of the titles of Nazianzen's sermons, are to no purpose,
although they were in the text of his homihes. For it ap-
peareth not, although by synecdoche the whole order of
making clerks were called -^eiporovia, that election was ex-
cluded, where there was ordination by imposition of hands.
As for that you cite out of Ignatius, [it] proveth against you,
that -^eipoTovelv differeth from " imposition of hands ;" be-
cause it is made a chstinct office from -^eipoBeTelv, that signi-
fieth to " lay on hands " : and so yeiporovia and eTrcOea-is
TWV -^eipuiv by your own author do differ.
Martin, 8. Martin. But they are so profane and secular, that they translate the
Greek word 7^peo■^vTepos• in all the New Testament, as if it had the old
profane signification still, and were indifferent to signify the "ancients of
the Jews," " the senators of Rome," " the elders of Lacedaemonia," and
Tous 7rp6(r. "the christian clergy." Insomuch that they say, "Paul sent to Ephesus,
and called the elders of the church," Acts xx. ; and yet they were such as
VI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 249
had their flocks and cure of souls, as followeth in the same place. They
make St Paul speak thus to Timothy : " Neglect not the gift/' (so they xapi<Tfia.
had rather say than "gi-ace," lest holy orders should be a sacrament,) 1577.
"given thee with the laying on of the hands of the eldership," or, "by tou irpeff-
the authority of the eldership ^" 1 Tim. iv. What is this company of ^J;'^^pJ°^;
" eldership" ? Somewhat they would say like to the apostle's word ; but
they will not speak plainly, lest the world might hear out of the scrip-
tures, that Timothy was made priest or bishop even as the use is in the
catholic church at this day. Let the fourth council of Carthage speak can. 3. in the
for both parts indifferently, and tell us the apostle's meaning : " A priest Where s". Au-
when he taketh his orders, the bishop blessing him and holding his ^|sent and
hand upon his head, let all the priests also that are present hold their subscnbed.
hands by the bishop's hand upon his head." So do our priests at this
day, when a bishop maketh priests ; and this is the laying on of the
hands of the company of priests, which St Paul speaketh of, and
which they translate, "the company of the eldership." Only their
former translation of 1562 in tliis place (by what chance or conside-
ration we know not) let fall out of the pen, "by the authority of
priesthood."
FulJce. We desire not to be more holy in tlie English Fulke, 8.
terms, than the Holy Ghost was in the Greek terms : whom
if it pleased to use such a word as is indifferent to signify
the " ancients of the Jews," " the senators of Rome," " the
elders of Lacedaemonia," and " the christian clergy," why
should we not truly translate it into Enghsh ?
[^ Mj) a/xeXet roC iv (rot x'^P'-^l^'^'''o^> ° {8607] aoi Bia Trpo(pTjTe'ias
fiera enideaeas rav x^ipav rov TTpeaj^vTepiov. 1 Tim. iv. 14. "Noli
negligere gratiam, quae in te est, quse data est tibi per prophetiam,"
Vulg. " The grace which is in thee," Wiclif. " Despise not the gift
that is in thee, wliich was given thee through prophecy, and with
laying on of the hands of an elder," Tyndale, 1534. " Despise not the
gift that is in thee, which was given thee through prophecy, with the
laying on of hands by the authority of the priesthood," Cranmer,
1539, 1562. "Despise not that gift that is in thee, which was given
thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands by the eldership,"
Geneva Test. 1557. "Despise not the gift, &c. with the laying on
of the hands of the company of the eldership," Geneva bible, 1560.
" Despise not the gift, &c. with the laying on of hands by the au-
thority of the eldership," Bishops' bible, 1584. " Neglect not the
grace that is in thee, which is given thee by prophecy, with impo-
sition of the hands of priesthood," Rheims. 1582. " Neglect not the gift
that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying
on of the hands of the presbytery," Authorised version. " Despise not
the gift," Edit. 1570, 1568.]
250 A DEFKNCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
But I pray you in good sadness, are we so profane and
secular, Acts xx., in calling those whom Saint Paul sent for
out of Ephesus, "elders"? What shall we say then of the
vulgar Latin text, which calleth them majores natu, as
though they obtained that degree by years, rather than by
anything else ? And why do you so profanely and secularly
call them the " ancients of the church "? Is there more pro-
faneness and secularity in the EngUsh word "elders," than in
the Latin word majores natu, or in your French-English
term, "ancients"? Surely you do nothing but play with the
noses of such as be ignorant in the tongues, and can perceive
no similitude or difference of these words, but by the sound
of their ears. But now for the word irpecrfivTeptov, used by
St Paul, 1 Tim. iv,, which we call the " eldersliip," or " the
company of elders," I have shewed before, how it is used by
St Luke in his gospel, chap, xxii., and Acts xxii. You say,
we "will not speak plainly, lest the world should hear that
Timothy was made priest or bishop even as the use is in
the catholic church at this day." And then you tell us, out
of the council of Carthage, 4 chap, that all the priests present
should lay their hands on the head of him that is ordained,
together with the bishop. We know it well, and it is used
in the church of England at this day. Only the term of
" eldership" displeaseth you, when we mean thereby the com-
pany of elders. But whereas the translators of the bible,
1562, called it " priesthood," either by priesthood they meant
the same that we do by " eldership ;" or if they meant by
"priesthood" the office of priests, or elders, they were de-
ceived. For irpea^vrepiov signifieth " a company of elders,"
as it is twice used by St Luke, and oftentimes by the ancient
writers of the church, both Greeks and Latins.
Martin, 9. Martin. Otherwise in all their Enghsh bibles all the bells ring
one note^, as, " The elders that rule well are worthy of double honour."
n Oi KaXws Tvpofcrrarfs irpfcrfBvTepoi dinXrjs ripfjs a^iovcrdaxrav.
1 Tim. v. 17. "Qui bene praesunt presbyteri, duplici honore digni ha-
beantur," Vulg. "The elders that rule well are worthy of double
honour," Tyndale, 1534, Cranmer, 1539, 1562; Bishops' bible, 1584,
Geneva, 1560. " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double
honour," Authorised version. " The priests that rule well, let them be
esteemed worthy of double honour," Rheims.
VI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 251
And, " Against an elder receive no accusation, but under two or three
witnesses," 1 Tim. v. And, " If any be diseased among you, let him Toviirpetr-
call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, and ^j^^^^°^^n-
anoint him with oil," &c. Jacob, v. Whereas St Chrysostom out of o-i'us.
this place proveth the high dignity of priests in remitting sins, in his sacerdotio.
book entitled, " Of Priesthood," unless they will translate that title irepl lepw-
also, " Of Eldership." Again, they make St Peter say thus : " The elders <^'''")«-
which are among you I exhort, which am also an elder, feed ye Clirist's
flock, as much as lieth in you," &c. 1 Pet. v.
FulJce. In these three texts you triumph not a little, Fulke, 9.
because your vulgar Latin text hath the Greek word pres-
byter. "The high dignity of priests, or elders, in remitting
sins," we acknowledge with Chrysostom, in liis book entitled
" Of Priesthood :" which seeing it is TrejoJ \ep(aavvr}<i, we will
never translate " eldersliip." But we may lawfully wish, that
both Chrysostom and other ancient writers had kept that
distinction of terms, which the apostles and evangehsts did so
precisely observe. In the last text, 1 Pet. v., your vulgar Latin
saith, seniores and consenior, yourselves in English, " seniors,"
and " fellow senior^" What trespass then have we committed,
in saying " elders," and " fellow elder," or an elder also ?
Martin. Where if they will tell us, as also in certain other places, Martin,
that our Latin translation hath seniores, and majores natu : we tell
them, as heretofore we have told them, that this is nothing to them, s. Hierom
' J o > readeth,
who profess to translate the Greek. Again we say, that if they meant Presbyteros
6£0 cornpr6S-
no worse than the old Latin translator did, they woiild be as indifferent byter, £p. 85.
as he to have said sometime " priests" and " priesthood," when he hath fn i. ad^oai.
proving the
Kara irpea^vrepov KaTTjyoplav fiTj 7rapaSe;^ov. 1 Tim. v. 19. " Ad-
versus presbyterum accusationem noli recipere," Vulg. " Against an
elder receive none accusation," Tyndale, Cranmer, Bishops' bible,
Geneva, Authorised version. " Against a priest receive not accusation,"
Wiclif, Rheims.
TrpocrKaXfaaadco tovs Trptcr^vTepovs ttjs eKKKTjcrias. James v. 14.
"Inducat presbyteros ecclesiae," Vulg. "Let him call for the elders
of the congregation," Tyndale, Cranmer. " Let him call for the elders
of the chiu'ch," Geneva, Bishops' bible, 1584. Authorised version. "Let
him bring in the priests of the church," Rheims. Upea-^vrepovs roiis
iv vfiiv TrapaKoXu) 6 (rvp.7rpecr^vT€pos. 1 Pet. v. 1. " Seniores ergo, qui in
vobis sunt, obsecro, consenior," Vulg. " The elders which are among
you, I exhort, which am also an elder," Tyndale, Cranmer, Bishops'
bible, Geneva, Authorised version. " The seniors therefore that are among
you, I beseech, myself a fellow senior with them," Rheims, 1582.3
252
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
dignity of
priests ; and
yet in Gal. iv.
he readeth
according to
the vulgar
Latin text,
Seniores in
vobis rogo
consenior et
ipse. Where-
by it is evi-
dent, that se-
nior here, and
in the Acts,
is a priest,
and not con-
trary, pres-
byter, an
elder.
the words presbyteros and presbyterium ; as we are indifferent in our
translation, saying " seniors" and " ancients," when we find it so in our
Latin; being well assured that by sundry words he meant but one
thmg, as in Greek it is but one, and as both Erasmus and also Beza
himself always translate it, keeping the name presbyter and presbyteri ;
of whom by reason they should have learned, rather than of our Latin
translator, whom otherwise they condemn. And if they say they do
follow them, and not him, because they translate not senior and
major natu, but the word presbyter, or Trpea^vrepos, an " elder," in all
places ; we tell them, and herein we convent their conscience, that they
do it to take away the external priesthood of the New Testament, and
to suppress the name " priest," against the ecclesiastical, and (as now
since Christ) veiy proper and usual signification thereof, in the New
Testament, councils, and fathers, in all common writing and speaking ;
specially the Latin presbyter, which grew to this signification out of the
Greek, in the foresaid places of holy scripture.
FULKE,
10.
Fulke. I have told you already, and you could not but
know that it should be told you, that seemg we translate
none otherwise than your vulgar Latin translator, we are
no more to be blamed of falsehood, corruption, profaneness,
novelty, than he is, who professed to translate the Greek
as much as we do. But if we had meant no worse (say you)
than he, we would have been as indifferent to have said some-
times " priest" and " priesthood," where he hath the word
presbyteros and presbyterium. I answer, presbyterium he
hath but once, and for that you have " priesthood" once, as you
confessed before. And if the name " priest" were of the same
understanding in common Enghsh that the word presbyter
is, from whence it is derived, we would never have sought
more words for it, than we do for the words "bishop," "dea-
con," and such like.
The words presbyter and presbyterium you confess
that Beza doth always use : and so do we, when we write
or speak Latin ; but we cannot use them in Enghsh, except
we should be as fond as you in your gratis, depositum, and
such fantasies. And to tell you plauily, as om* conscience
beareth us witness, we will never dissemble, that we avoid
that word "' priest," as it is used to signify a sacrificer, because
we would shew a perfect distinction between the priesthood
of the law and the ministry of the gospel, between sacerdos
and presbyter, a sacrificer and a governor of the church.
And I appeal to your own conscience, whether, if the English
VI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 25S
word " priest" were as indifferent as presbyter, and sounded
no more towards a sacrifice than either presbyter or your own
English words " ancient" and " senior," whether (I say) you
would make so much ado about it, for to have it in all places
of the New Testament, where Trpea^vrepo's is in the Greek ?
But seeing yoiu* popish sacrificing power, and blasphemous
sacrifice of your mass, hath no manner ground at all in the
holy scriptures, either in the original Greek, or in your own
Latin translation, you are driven to seek a silly shadow for
it in the abusive acception and sounding of the English word
" priest" and " priesthood." And therefore you do, in the
second section of tliis chapter, in great earnest affirm, that
" priest, sacrifice, and altar" are dependents, and consequents,
one of another, so that they cannot be separated. If you should
say in Latin sacerdos, sacrificium, altare, or in Greek Upevt;,
Ova'ia r] 'Trpocrcpopa, Kal Ouaiao'T^piov be such consequents,
we will also subscribe unto you : but if you will change the
word, and say presbyter, sacrificium, altare, or irpea^vTc-
po9, Ouar'ia, OvaiaaTtjpiov, every learned man's ears will glow,
to hear you say they are dependents and consequents in-
separable. Therefore we must needs cHstinguish of the word
" priest" in your corollary : for [if] you mean thereby sacerdo-
tem, we grant the consequence of sacrifice and altar ; but
if you mean presbyterium \j)resbyterimi], we deny that ever
God joined those three in an unseparable band ; or that
presbyter, in that he is presbyter, hath any thing to do
with sacrifice or altar, more than senior, or major natu, or
ancient, or elder.
Martin. Insomuch that immediately in the first canons and councils Martin,
of the apostles and their successors, nothing is more common than this
distinction of ecclesiastical degrees and names, si episcopiis, vel presbyter, ApstXonc.i.
vel diaconus^, &c. : " If any bishop, or priest, or deacon" do this or that, i^at^conc.
Which if the protestants or Calvinists will translate after their manner [^^^'pet ' v^^
thus, " If a bishop, or elder, or deacon," &c., they do against themselves,
which make presbyter or " elder" a common name to all ecclesiastical
persons, and not a peculiar degree next unto a bishop. So that either
they must condemn all antiquity for placing presbyter in the second
degree after a bishop; or they must translate it "priest," as we do; or
they must make "elder" to be their second degree, and so put "minister"
out of place.
[^ Aut, not vel, in Labbe, Vol. i, p. 52.]
254
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
FuLKE,
11.
Fulke. The distinction of episcopus and presbyter to
signify several offices, we grant to be of great antiquity ;
albeit we may not admit the counterfeit canons of the apostles,
nor the epistles of Ignatius, for such men's writings as they
bear the name to be. We make presbyter, or " elder," a
common name to all ecclesiastical persons, none otherwise than
you do this word " priest :" for deacons with us are not
called presbyteri, or " elders." As for the distinction of
bishops' and elders' names, which the scripture taketh for the
same, doth no more " condemn all antiquity" in us, than in you,
who acknowledge that the scripture useth those names with-
out distinction, in your note upon Acts xx. v. 28, where they
are called " bishops," which before, v. 17, are called irpeal^u-
^epoi, which you translate "ancients," and expound "priests;"
and thus you write : " Bishops or priests (for those names
were sometimes used indifferently), governors of the church
of God, and placed in that room and high function by the
Holy Ghost." But it seemeth you have small regard to
defend your own notes, so you might find occasion to quarrel
at our words.
Martin,
12.
i5iaK;oi'os.
Diaconus.
S. Tim. iii.
Bib. 1577.
1579.
Prebstre.
Prete.
Martin. And here we must ask them, how this name "minister"
came to be a degree distinct from a deacon, whereas by their own rule
of translation, "deacon" is nothing else but a "minister;" and why-
keep they the old and usual ecclesiastical name of " deacon" in trans-
lating diaconus, and not the name of " priest" in translating presbyter ?
Doth not " priest" come of presbyter as certainly and as agreeably as
"deacon" of diaconus? Doth not also the French and Italian word
for "priest" come directly from the same? "Will you always follow
fancy and not reason, do what you list, translate as you list, and not as
the truth is, and that in the holy scriptures, which you boast and vaunt
so much of ? Because yourselves have them whom you call bishops, the
name " bishops" is in your English bibles ; which otherwise by your
own rule of translation should be called an "overseer" or "superin-
tendent :" likewise " deacon" you are content to use as an ecclesiastical
word so used in antiquity, because you also have those whom you call
"deacons." Only "priests" must be turned contemptuously out of the
text of the holy scriptures, and " elders" put in their place, because
you have no priests, nor will none of them, and because that is in con-
troversy between us. And as for elders, you have none permitted in
England, for fear of overthrowing your bishops' office and the Queen's
supreme government in all spiritual things and causes. Is not this to
follow the humour of your heresy, by Machiavel's politic rules, without
any fear of God ?
VI.] TRANSLATIONS OP THE BIBLE. 255
Fulke. Here I must answer you, that we have no Fulke,
degree of ministers distinct from deacons, but by vulgar and 12.
popular use of speaking, which we are not curious to control.
Otherwise, in truth, we account bishops, elders, and deacons,
all ministers of the church. It is no more, therefore, but
the common speech of men, which useth that word, which is
common to all ecclesiastical persons, as peculiar to the elders,
or priests. Why we keep the name of " deacons" in translating
diaconus, rather than of " priests" in translating presbyter,
I have told you often before. The name " priest" being by
long abuse of speech apphed to signify sacrificers of the Old
Testament, called 'lepfi^, we could not give the same name
to the ministers of the New Testament, except we had some
other name, whereby to call the ministers of the Old Testa-
ment : wherein we follow reason, and not fancy ; for it is
great reason we should retain that difference in names of
the ministers of both the testaments, wliich the Holy Ghost
doth always observe. But you follow fancy altogether,
imagining that " priests" only are put out of the text, because
we have no priests : whereas we have priests as well as we
have bishops and deacons ; and so they are called in our Book
of Common Prayer indifferently " priests," or " ministers."
And where you say, we "have no elders permitted in England,"
it is false ; for those that are commonly called bishops, ministers,
or priests among us, be such " elders" as the scripture com-
mendeth unto us. And although we have not such a con-
sistory of elders of government, as in the primitive church
they had, and many churches at this day have ; yet have
we also elders of government to exercise discipline, as arch-
bishops, and bishops, with their chancellors, archdeacons,
commissaries, officials ; in whom if any defect be, we wish
it may be reformed according to the word of God.
Martin. "Apostles" you say for the most part in your translations (not Martin,
always), as we do, and " prophets," and "evangelists," and "angels," and ^^•
such like ; and wheresoever there is no matter of controversy between you
and us, there you can plead very gravely for keeping the ancient ecclesias-
tical words ; as your master Beza, for example, beside many other places Beza in cap.
where he bitterly rebuketh his fellow Castaleon's translation, in one place 25, &e.
writeth thus : " I cannot in this place dissemble the boldness of certain jn 3"Sp. '
men, which would God it rested within the compass of words only ! ^^^^' '^"™'
These men therefore, concerning the word baptizing, though used of Baptize.
256
A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH
[CH.
Baptism.
Baptizo.
Mediator.
sacred writers in the mystery or sacrament of the new testament, and
for so many years after, by the secret consent of all churches, consecrated
to this one sacrament, so that it is now grown into the vulgar speeches
almost of all nations, yet they dare presume rashly to change it, and in
place thereof to use the word " washing." Delicate men forsooth, which
neither are moved with the perpetual authority of so many ages, nor by
the daily custom of the vulgar speech can be brought to think that
lawful for divines, which aU men grant to other masters and professors of
arts ; that is, to retain and hold that as their own, which by long use and
in good faith they have truly possessed. Neither may they pretend the
authority of some ancient writers, as that Cyprian saith tingentes
for baptizantes, and Tertullian in a certain place calleth sequestrem
for mediatorem. For that which was to those ancients as it were new,
to us is old : and even then, that the selfsame words which we now use
were familiar to the church, it is evident, because it is very seldom that
they speak otherwise. But these men by this novelty seek after vain
glory," &c.
FuLKE,
13.
Fulke. If in any place we use not tlie name of the
"apostles," "prophets," "evangelists," "angels," and such like,
we are able to give as sufficient a reason why we translate
those words according to their general signification, as you
for translating sometime baptismata, "washings," and not bap-
tisms ; ecclesia " the assembly," and not the church, with such
like. Therefore as Castaleo and such other heretics are
justly reprehended by Beza for leaving (without cause) the
usual ecclesiastical terms ; so when good cause or necessity
requireth not to use them, it were superstition, yea, and
almost madness sometimes, in translating to use them ; as
to call the Pharisees' washings " baptisms," or the assembly
of the Ephesian idolaters " the church ;" yet both in Greek and
Latin the words are baptismata, ecclesia.
Martin,
14.
e'i.d<o\ov.
Confut. of
the Keas.
fol. 35.
fie-rdvoiap
fxfTavofXv,
Martin. He speaketh against Castaleon, who in his new Latin trans-
lation of the bible changed all ecclesiastical words into profane and
heathenish ; as angelos into genios, prophetas into fatidicos, templum into
fanum, and so forth. But that which he did for foolish affectation of
fineness and style, do not our English Calvinists the very same, when they
list, for furthering their heresies ? When the holy scripture saith " idols,"
according as Christians have always understood it, for false gods, they
come and tell us out of Homer and the lexicons, that it may signify an
image, and therefore so they translate it. Do they not the like in the
Greek word that by ecclesiastical use signifieth " penance," and " doing
penance," when they argue out of Plutarch, and by the profane sense
thereof, that it is nothing else but changing of the mind or amendment
VI,] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 257
of life ? Whereas in the Greek church paenitentes, that is, they that
were in the course of penance, and excluded from the church, as
catechumeni and energumeni, till they had accomplished their penance,
the very same are called in the Greek oi iv fifravoia ovrts.
Fulke. That Castaleo " did for foolish affectation of fine- Fulke,
ness," you slander us to do "for furtheriner of heresy." And
'^ . . 1 Dionys. Ec.
here again with loathsomeness you repeat your rotten quarrel Hier. cap. 3.
of idols translated " images," wliich was to discover youi' abo-
minable idolatry, cloaked under a blind and false distinction
of images and idols. The word fxeravoia we translate "re-
pentance ;" as you do sometimes, when you cannot for shame
use your popish term " penance," by which you understand
satisfaction for sin, wliich in divers places you are enforced to
give over in the plain field, and to use the term "repentance;"
as in the fifth of the Acts^ : "This Prince and Saviour God
hath exalted with his right hand to give repentance to Israel
and remission of sins^ ;" likewise Acts xi., where the scripture
speaketh of God giving "repentance to the gentiles." And
when you speak of Judas, you say also " repentmg him^ :" so
that the repentance of Judas, and that which God gave to
Israel and to the gentiles, is uttered in one term ; whereas
else you have ahnost everywhere "penance," and "doing of
penance." Wliere you say we make repentance nothing but
changing of the mind, or amendment of life, you speak mi-
truly ; for not every changing of the mind is godly repent-
ance, neither is only amendment of life all repentance : but
there must be contrition and sorrow for the life past. That
in the Greek chm'ch they that were catechumeni, and ener-
[} Martin appears to have had the following passage of the 19th
Canon of the Council of Laodicea in liis mind, when he wrote this:
" Mera to i^iKBfiv tovs Karrj^ovnevovs, raiv iv fieravoia ttjv (V)(riv yiveadai.
Quibus (catechumenis) egressis, orent etiam hi qui in poenitentia sunt
constituti." £d. 1559. p. 34.]
P bovvai fieravoLav ra 'icrparjX koI acjyea-tv afiapnSv, Acts V. 31. " To
give repentance to Israel and remission of sins," Rhemish Version, 1582.]
P "Apaye Kol toIs edveaiv 6 Qebs ttjv peravoiav ebaiKev els C^rjv,
Acts xi. 18. "God then to the Gentiles also hath given repentance
unto life," Rhemish version, 1582.]]
Q* oTi KareKpidt], neTap.e\r]de\s, Matt, xxvii. "Seeing that he was
condemned, repenting himself," Rhemish version.]
[fulke. J
258 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
gumeni, were called ev tieravoiq. oi/res, " such as are in re-
pentance," it maketli nothing against the true use of the Greek
word, as it is used in the scriptures. We know the discipline
of the chiu'ch appointed an outward exercise of praying, fast-
ing, and other humbling, for a trial and testimony of true
and hearty repentance, which was sometimes called by the
name of repentance by a metonymia signi ; which he that wiU
enforce by that name to be parts of true and inward re-
pentance, is as wise as he that wiU contend the ivy-bush to
be a part of wine, because some men, seeing it hang over the
house, will say, Lo, here is wine.
Martin, Martin. They therefore leaving this ecclesiastical signification, and
■'^' translating it according to Plutarch, do they not much like to Castaleo ?
Do they not the same against the famous and ancient distinction of
Latria. latria and duUa, when they tell us out of Eustathius upon Homer, and
Bez'rin 4. Aristophaues the grammarian, that these two are all one ? Wliereas we
Mat. num. 10. ppove out of St Augustine' in many places, the second council of Nice,
and Xa- Venerable Bede, and the long custom of the church, that according to
^riptures 'ai^ *^^ ccclesiastical sense and use deduced out of the scriptures they differ
Jj^o^t always yery much. Do they not the like in mysterium and sacramentum, which
service and
honour pro-
per to God,
civit^Deifii. {} Hic est euim divinitati vel, si expressius dicendum est, deitati
debitus cultus, propter quem uno verbo significandum quoniam mihi
satis idoneum non occurrit Latinum, Graeco ubi necesse est insinuo quid
velim dicere. Aarpeiav quippe nostri, ubicumque sanctarum scrip-
turarum positum est, interpretati sunt servitutem. Sed ea servitus, quae
debetur hominibus, secundum quam praecepit apostolus servos dominis
suis subditos esse debere, alio nomine Greece nuncupari solet : '^arpfia
vero, secundum consuetudinem qua locuti sunt qui nobis divina eloquia
condiderimt, aut semper, aut tam frequenter ut paene semper, ea dicitur
servitus quae pertinet ad colendum Deum. Augustini de Civitate Dei,
Lib. X. c. i. Opera, Vol. vii. p. 381.]
\y Upon the 33rd verse of the 23rd chapter of Exodus, Augustine
thus speaks : Hic Graecus BovXevajjs habet, non 'Xarpeva-rjs. Unde intelli-
gitur, quia et BovXtia debetur Deo tanquam Domino, Xarpeia vero non-
nisi Deo tanquam Deo. Quaestiones in Exodum. xciv. Opera, Vol. iii.
p. 711.
This distinction between the two words is frequently alluded to
by Augustine: for instance, in his treatise against the sei-mon of the
Arians, he says, " Et tamen, si apertissime legerent in Sanctis scripturis
Salomonem regem lignis et lapidibus jussu Dei templum struxisse Spi-
ritui Sancto, Deum esse Spiritum Sanctum dubitare non possent, cui
tanta religionis servitus, quae latria dicitur, legitime exhiberetur in
c. 1.
VI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 259
they translate a secret in the profane sense; whereas they know how these Bib. an. isea.
words are otherwise taken, both in Greek and Latin, in the church of
God ? Did they not the like in the word ecdesia, when they translated
it nothing else but "congregation"? Do they not the like in x^'-P°'^'^v''-'^>
which they translate, ordaining by election, as it was in the profane court
of Athens; whereas St Hierom telleth them, that ecclesiastical writers
take it for giving holy orders by imposition of hands ? Do they not the
like in many other words, wheresoever it serveth their heretical purpose?
And as for profane translation, is there any more profane than Beza
himself, that so often in his annotations reprehendeth the old translation
by the authority of Tully and Terence, Homer and Aristophanes, and
the like profane authors ? yea, so fondly and childishly, that for olfactum,
which Erasmus useth, as Pliny's word, he will needs say odoratum,
because it is Tally's word,
Fulke. In translating the scripture, we use the word " re- Fulke,
pentance" in the same signification that the scripture useth ■^^■
lJi€Tavoia. In other ecclesiastical writers, we can neverthe-
less understand it as they mean it. Concerning that un-
learned distinction of latria and dulia, we do rightly to shew
out of profane writers that it is vain, and that the terms
signify all one ; and you yourself confess in your marginal
note, that sometimes in the scriptm*e Xarpevco and Xarpeia
populo Dei, ut illi etiam tern plum fabricaretur; cum Dominus dicat,
Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies: quod in Graeco est,
XaTpevcreis." Cap. XX. also ca:p. xxix. Opera, Vol. viii. pp. 980
and 987.
Again, in his treatise on the Trinity, cap. xiii. he says, " Maxime
vero illo loco satis claret, quod Spiritus Sanctus non sit creatura, ubi
jubemur non servire creaturoe, sed creatori : non eo modo quo jubemur
per caritatem servire invicem, quod est Graece dovXeveiv, sed eo modo
quo tantum Deo servitur, quod est Graece Xarpevetv." (Opera, Vol. viii.
p. 1164.) Other passages of a similar kind maybe quoted; but these
are sufficient to shew the opinion of Augustine.
On the other hand may be produced the following passages of scrip-
ture, to shew that it is doubtful whether there exists this nice distinction
betwixt the two words. See Matt. vi. 24. Luke xvi. 13. Romans vii. 25 ;
xvi. 18. Col. iii. 24. Gal. iv. 8. 1 Thess. i. 9. in which places dovXevco
is used for serving God. The two words are frequently used promis-
cuously in scripture : Xarpevai is applied to the service of men, as well
as God, Compare Deut, xxviii. 48. Lev. xxiii. 7, where Xarpevco is used
in a servile sense. In the whole of the 4th chapter of Galatians 8ovXevco
is applied to the worship of God. Nonnus interprets Xarpeia by 8ov-
Xoa-vvT] and 8ovXos : for, says Casaubon, that unsound distinction which
confines Xarpeia to God, and BovXoa-iivrj to angels, had not arisen.
17—2
260
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
do not signify the service and honour that is proper to
God: as for SovXevw, [it] is in more than an hundred places
used for the service and honour proper to God. St Augus-
tine, you confess afterward, knew well but one tongue ; and
therefore he is no meet judge of distinction of Greek words.
Bede foUoweth Augustine's error. The idolaters of the
second Nicene council were glad of a cloak for the rain, con-
trary to the property of their tongue ; as is proved by
Eustathius, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Suidas, and by later
writers, no protestants, Laurentius Valla, and Ludovicus
Vivos. Mysterium we translate a "secret," or a "mystery," in-
differently ; the word signifying no more an holy secret, than
a profane and abominable secret, as the " mystery of iniquity,"
" the mystery of Babylon." For the words ecclesia, and
')^€ipoTovia, we have said sufficiently, and very lately. To
use Tully's words, when they answer the Greek as properly
as any barbarous words, or less commendable words, I know
not why it should be counted blame-worthy in Beza, or in
any man, except it be of such a sycophant as liketh nothing
but that which savoureth of his own spittle.
Maktin,
16.
Martin. But to return to our English translators : do not they the
like to profane Castaleo, and do they not the very same that Beza their
master so largely reprehendeth, when they translate presbyterum "an
elder ?" Is it not all one fault to translate so, and to translate, as Castaleo
doth, baptismum washing ? Hath not presbyter heen a peculiar and usual
word for a priest, as long as haptismus for the sacrament of regeneration,
which Castaleo altering into a common and profane word, is worthily
reprehended ? We will prove it hath, not for their sake, who know it
well enough, but for the reader's sake, whom they abuse, as if they
knew it not.
FuLKE,
16.
Fulke. If it be as great a fault in us to translate pres-
byteriim, "an elder,"" as for Castaleo to translate baptismum
" washing ;'"* your vulgar translator must be in the same fault
with us, which so often traxislaiQilx presbyteros, seniores, or
major es natu, which signify "elders," and not "priests:" it is
a vain thing therefore that you promise to prove, that "pres-
byter hath been a peculiar and usual word for a 'priest,'' as
long as baptismus for the sacrament of regeneration." For
peculiar you can never prove it, seeing it is used in the
scripture so often for such elders and ancients as you your-
VI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 261
self would not call priests. So that, if you clid translate
the whole bible out of your own vulgar Latin, you must
translate presbyter thrice an " elder" or " ancient," for once
a " priest."
Martin, In the first and second canon of the apostles we read thus : Martin,
Episcopus a duobus aut tribus episcopis ordinetur. Presbyter ab uno
episcopo ordinetur, et diaconus, et alii clerici^ : that is, " Let a bishop be ^rlia^h^slg^"
consecrated or ordained by two or three bishops." " Let a priest be ^lom fhe"po-
made by one bishop." See in the fourth council of Carthage the diverse sties' time,
. not an elder.
manner of consecrating bishops, priests, deacons, &c. where St Angus- Can. 2, 3, 4.
tine was present and subscribed. Again, Si quis presbyter contemnens ^.^^ ^ j
cpiscopiun suiim, &:c. : " If any priest contemning his bishop," make a 32-
several congregation, and erect another altar, that is, make a schism or
heresy, let him be deposed. So did Arius, being a priest, agamst his
bishop Alexander. Again, " priests and deacons, let them attempt to do can. 40.*
notliing without the bishop." The first council of Nice saith : " The holy can. 3.3
synod by all means forbiddeth, that neither bishop, nor priest, nor deacon,
&c., have with them any foreign woman, but the mother, or sister, &c.,
in whom there is no suspicion." Again, " It is told the holy councU, can. 14.<
that in certain places and cities deacons give the sacraments to priests.
This neither rule nor custom hath delivered, that they which have not
authority to offer the sacrifice, should give to them that offer the body
of Christ." The third councU of Carthage, wherein St Augustine was,
and to the which he subscribed, decreeth, "That in the sacraments of can. 24 n
the body and blood of Christ, there be no more offered than our Lord
himself delivered, that is, bread and wine mingled with water." WTiich
the sixth general councU of Constantinople repeating and confirming,
addeth : " If therefore any bishop or priest do not according to the order el -ris: oZv
given by the apostles, mingling water with wine, but offer an unmingled ^- -^ne^^l'
sacrifice, let him be deposed," &c. But of these speeches all councils be xe^os".
full : where we would gladly know of these new translators, how presby-
ter must be translated, either an " elder," or a " priest."
Fulke. I think you have clean forgotten your promise Fulke,
so lately made. That tliis word presbyter hath always been '*
peculiar for a "priest," you bring many testimonies, some coun-
terfeit, some authentical, in which the name of Trjoecr/Byrejoo?
and presbyter is fomid ; but that in all them it is pecuUar
Q Vel tribus Episcopis. Et reliqui cleri. Canon xxx. Concilia edit.
Labbe, Vol. i. p. 26, not. xxxii.]
[2 Can. xxxviii. Edit. Labbe.] P Can. iii. Vol. 11. p. 28.]
C* Can. xviii.] P Vol. 11. p. 1170.]
\^ Can. xxxii. Vol. vi. p. 1157.]
262
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
for a " priest," you shew not at all. Some colour it hath of
that you say, in the 14th canon of the Nicene coimcil, and
Carth. iii. c. 24, repeated Const, vi., where mention is made
of sacrifice and oiFering ; for so they did improperly call
the administration of the Lord's supper, in respect of the sacri-
fice of thanksgiving that was offered therein. After which
phrase also, they called the ministers lepeh and sacerdotes,
"sacrificers." So they called that which indeed was a table
of wood, an altar, and the inferior ministers Levites ; by
which it appeareth they did rather allude to the names used
in the Old Testament, than acknowledged a sacrificing priest-
hood, that might as properly be so called, as the priesthood
after the order of Aaron was. Sometime they used the
name of " sacrifice" and sacerdos generally, for religious ser-
vice, and the minister of religion, as the gentiles did. And
hereof it is, that we read often of the sacrifices of bread and
wine ; and in the canon of Carthage by you cited. Nee
amplius in sacrificiis offeratur quam de uvis et frumentis^ :
"And let no more be offered in the sacrifices, than that which
is made of grapes and corn." This was bread and wine, not
the natural body and blood of Christ. Wherefore these
improper speeches prove not a sacrificing priesthood, whereby
the natural body and blood of Christ should be offered in the
mass, which is the mark you shoot at.
Martin,
18.
Ep. 2. ad
Trallianos.
TO irpeer-
PvTtpiov.
OL TTjOeo-jSu-
Tepoi.
Comment,
in c. 7- Mi-
ehea.
Ep. 85. ad
Evangelum.
Epitaph. Ne-
potiani, c. 9.
Martin. Do not all the fathers speak after the same manner, making
always this distinction of "bishop" and "priest,'' as of the first and
second degree? St Ignatius, the apostle's scholar, doth he not place
preshyterium, as he calleth it, and presbyteros, " priests," or the " college
of priests," next after " bishops," and " deacons" in the third place, re-
peating it no less than thrice in one epistle, and commending the dignity
of all three unto the people ? Doth not St Jerome the very same, saying,
" Let us honour a bishop, do reverence to a priest, rise up to a deacon^ ?"
And when he saith, that as Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in
the temple, so are bishops, priests, and deacons in the church, for place
p Vol. II. 1170.1
P Nolite credere in ducibus, non in episcopo, non in presbytero,
non in diacono, non in qualibet hominum dignitate. * * » • * Honoremus
episcopum, presbytero deferamus, assurgamus diacono; et tamen non
speremus in eis : quia hominis vana, et certa spes est in Domino. Com-
ment. Hieronymi in Michaese, c. vii. Opera, Vol. iii. p. 1549.]
VI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. • 263
and degree' ; and in another place, speaking of the outrages done by
the Vandals and such hke, "Bishops were taken, priests slain, and
diverse of other ecclesiastical orders; churches overthrown, the altars
of Christ made stables for horses, the reUcs of martyrs digged up," &c.*
when he saith of Nepotian, fit clericus, et per solitos gradus presbyter
ordinatur ; " he becometh a man of the clergy, and by the accustomed
degrees is made," what ? a "priest," or an " elder" 1 when he saith, Mihi
ante presbyterum sedere non licet, &c., doth he mean he could not sit above
an elder, or above a priest, himself as then being not priest ? When he
and Vincentius, as St Epiphanius wTiteth, of reverence to the degree, Ep. 60. apud
• 1- ij u- 9 Hiero. c. 1.
were hardly induced to be made presbyteri, did they refuse the eldership {
What was the matter, that John the bishop of Jerusalem seemed to be
so much offended with Epiphanius and St Jerome ? was it not because
Epiphanius made Paulianus, St Jerome's brother, priest withki the said Ep. i. ad
John's diocese ?
Fulke. Before the blasphemous heresy of the popish Fulke,
sacrifice of the mass was estabhshed in the world, the fathers ■^^•
did with more hberty use the terms of "sacrifice" and " sacri-
ficing priests;" which improper speeches, since they have
given occasion in the time of ignorance to maintain that
blasphemous heresy, there is good reason that we should
beware how we use any such terms, especially in translation
of the scriptures. All the rest of the authorities you cite in
this section, and five hundred more such as they are, speak
of presbyter or TrpeajSurepo^, which words we embrace : but
of the English word "priest," as it is commonly taken for a
sacrificer, or against this word " elder," they speak nothing ;
for in all those places we may truly translate for presbyter
an " elder."
Martin. When all antiquity saith, Hieronymus Presbyter, Cecilius Martin,
Presbyter, Ruffinus Presbyter, Philippus, Juvencus, Hesychius, Beda, ^*
presbyteri ; and when St Jerome so often in his Catalogue saith, such a
man, presbyter; is it not for distinction of a certain order, to signify that
they were priests, and not bishops ? namely, when he saith of St Chry-
[^ Et ut sciamus traditiones apostolicas sumtas de veteri testamento,
quod Aaron et filii ejus atque Levitee in templo fuerunt, hoc sibi epis-
copi et presbyteri et diaconi vendicant in ecclesia. Hieronymi Epist.
c. i. ad Evangelum. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 803.]
[* Capti episcopi, interfecti presbyteri, et diversorum ofi&cia cleri-
corum. Subversae ecclesiae, ad altaria Christi stabulati equi, martyrum
effossae reliquiae. Hieronymi, Epitaph. Nepotiani. Opera, Vol. iv.
p. 274.]
264
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
b
FULKE,
19.
sostom, Joannes presbyter Antiochenus, doth he not mean he was as then
but a priest of Antioch 1 Would he have said so, if he had written of
him after he was bishop of Constantinople ?
Fulke. All this wliile here is nothing for the Enghsh
word "priest," in that respect we avoid it in translation; nor
against the word "elder," which we use, by which we mean
none other thing than the scripture doth give us to under-
stand by the word Trpeo-jSyrejOos. As for the distinction of
episcopus and presbyter, which came in afterward, you your-
self confessed, as we heard of late, that it is not observed in
the scriptures ; but the same men are called episcopi, wliich
before were called preshyteri. And according to that dis-
tinction, you can allow but one bishop of one city at once :
yet the scripture in divers places speaketh of many bishops
of one city, as Acts xx,, the bishops of Ephesus, called before
preshyteri, " elders ;" also he saluteth the bishops and deacons
of Philippi, Phil, i,, where your note saith, that in the
apostle's time there were not observed always distinct names
of either function of bishop and priest. Would you have
us to translate the scripture with distinction of names wliich
the Holy Ghost maketh not, nor your vulgar Latin observeth,
nor you yourself for shame can observe ? And if we should
have translated for "elders'" "priests," that distinction taken
up after the apostle's times, or the writing of the scripture,
had been never the more confirmed.
Martin,
20.
Martin. But of all other places, we would desire these gay transla-
tors to translate this one place of St Augustine, speaking of himself a
Quanquam enim secundum honorum
Inter Episto- bishop, and St Jerome a priest
las Hiero. Ep. . .
97. in fine, vocaoula, qucs jam ecclesue usus obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio major sit;
tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est. Is not this
the English thereof? "For although according to the titles or names of
honour, which now by use of the church have prevailed, the degree of
bishop be greater than priesthood, yet in many things Augustine is
less than Jerome." Or doth it like them to translate it thus, "The
degree of bishop is greater than eldership," &c. ? Again, against Julian
the heretic, when he hath brought many testimonies of the holy doctors,
that were all bishops, as of St Cyprian, Ambrose, BasU, Nazianzene,
Chrysostom ; at length he cometh to St Jerome, who was no bishop, and
saith. Nee sanctum Hieronymum, quia presbyter fuit, contemnendum.
arbitreris ; that is, " Neither must thou thuik that St Jerome, because
he was but a priest, therefore is to be contemned ; whose divine eloquence
hath shined to us from the east even to the west, like a lamp ;" and so
Lib. 1. c. 2.
in fine.
VI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 265
forth to his gi-eat commendation. Here is a plain distinction of an infe-
rior degree to a bishop, for the which the heretic Julian did easily con-
temn him. Is not St Cyprian full of the like places ? Is not all antiquity
so full, that whiles I prove this, methinketh I prove nothing else but
that snow is white ?
Fulke. Of all other importune and unreasonable judges Fulke,
you are one of the worst, that would enforce us to translate
the scriptures, which you confess observeth not the distinction
of bishops and priests, according to the fathers, which do
almost always observe it. If we should translate those sen-
tences of St Augustine, we might use the word " priest" for
presbyter, and "priesthood" for preshyterium; and if we use
the words " elders" and " eldership," what offence I pray you
were it, when by these names we understand nothing, but
the same function and minister wliich Augustine doth ? That
episcopus, a " bishop," was of very old time used to signify
a degree ecclesiastical liigher than presbyter, an " elder" or
"priest," we did never deny; we know it right well. We know
what St Jerome writeth upon the epistle to Titus, chap. i.
Idem est ergo presbyter, qui episcopus^. "The same man
is presbyter, or an ' elder,' or ' priest,' wliich is episcopus, a
'bishop.' And before that, by the instinct of the devil, factions
were made in rehgion, and it was said among the people,
'I am of Paul, I of Apollo, and I of Cephas,' the churches
were governed by common counsel presbyterorum, ' of the
elders.' But afterward, when every one thought those whom
he had baptized to be his own, and not Christ's, it was de-
creed in the whole world, that one de presbyteris, ' of the
elders,' being elected, should be set over the rest, to whom
all the care of the church should pertain, and the seeds of
scliisms should be taken away." Tliis, and much more to this
effect, writeth St Hieronyme of this distinction, in that place,
and in divers other places ; which nothing proveth that we
[} Idem est ergo presbyter qui episcopus : et antequam diaboli in-
stinctu studia in religione fierent, et diceretur in populis, Ego sum
Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephse, communi presbyterorum consilio
ecclesiae gubemabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptiza-
verat suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus
de presbyteris electus superponeretur ceteris, ad quern omnis ecclesiae
cura pertineret, et schismatum semina toUerentur. Comment. Hiero-
nymi in Titum, c. i. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 413.]
266 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CEt.
are bound to translate presbyter in the scripture a " priest,""
and least of all, that we are bound in terms to keep that
distinction, which the scripture maketh not, and the papists
themselves cannot observe in their most partial translation.
Martin, Martin, In aE which places if they will translate "elder," and yet
make the same a common name to all ecclesiastical degrees, as Beza
1 Pet. V. defineth it, let the indifferent reader consider the absurd confusion, or
rather the impossibility thereof: if not, but they will grant in all these
places it signifieth " priest," and so is meant ; then we must beat them
Beza's words with. Beza's rod of repi'ehension against Castaleon, that " we cannot
in the place ° ,
above aiieg- dissemble the boldness of these men, which would God it rested within
the custom of words only, and were not important matter concerning
their heresy ! These men therefore, touching the word ' priest,' though
used of sacred writers in the mystery of the New Testament, and for so
many years after, by the secret consent of all churches, consecrated to
this one sacrament, so that it is now grown to be the proper vulgar
v'^hk speech almost of all nations ; yet they dare presume rashly to change
Priest. it, and in place thereof to use the word ' elder.' DeUcate men, forsooth !"
(yea, worse a great deal, because these do it for heresy, and not for deli-
cacy,) "which neither are moved with the perpetual authority of so
many ages, nor by the daily custom of the vulgar speech can be brought
to think that lawful for divines, which all men grant to other masters
and professors of arts ; that is, to retain and hold that as their own,
wliich by long use, and in good faith, they have truly possessed. Nei-
ther may they pretend the authority of any ancient writer," (as that the
Presbyter, old Latin translator saith senior and seniores ;) "for that which was to
for a priest. , i i i <•
Baptismus, them as it were new, to us is old ; and even then, that the selfsame words
ment of bapT wliich we now use were more familiar to the church, it is evident, be-
cause it is very seldom that they speak otherwise."
FcLKE, Fulke. I see no impossibility, but that in all places
where we read j^feshyter, we may lawfully translate " elder,"
as well as " priest," and make it still, in scripture, a common
name to all ecclesiastical degrees, (at least, to as many as
the scripture maketh it common,) without any absurdity or
confusion. And albeit in the fathers we should translate
it " priest," because they understood by the name presbyter
a distinct degree from episcopus ; yet the saying of Beza
against Castaleo could not by any wise man be applied to
us. For Castaleo changed the name of the sacrament bap-
tismus, by wliich both the scriptures and the fathers uni-
formly did use to signify one and the same sacrament :
whereas the name of presbyter in the scripture signifieth
one thing, and in the fathers another. For in the scripture
VI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 267
it is taken indifferently for episcopus, and episcopus for
presbyter : but in the fathers these are two distinct degrees.
Therefore he is worthy to be beaten in a grammar-school,
that cannot see manifest difference between the use of the
word haptismus, which, being spoken of the sacrament, in
the scriptures and fathers is always one, and of presbyter,
which in the scriptures is every ecclesiastical governor, in the
fathers one degree only, that is subject to the bishop.
Martin. Thus we have repeated Beza'e words again, only changing Martin,
the word " baptism" into " priest," because the case is all one : and so
unwittingly Beza, the successor of Calvin in Geneva, hath given plain
sentence against our English translators in all such cases, as they go from
the common received and usual sense to another profane sense, and out of
use : as, namely, in this point of " priest" and " priesthood." Where we
must needs add a word or two, though we be too long, because their
folly and malice is too great herein. For whereas the very name " priest" s^M- Whit-
. .; X- g,fj g defence
never came into our English tongue, but of the Latin presbyter, (for against the
J. , , 1, 1 1 , \ 1 Puritans' Re-
thereupon sacerdos also was so called only by a consequence,) they piy, p. 721,
translate sacerdos" priest," and presbyter, not priest, but "elder," as wisely firmeth that
and as reasonably, as if a man should translate Prcetor Londini, " Mayor pri^^ com-
of London," and Major Londini, not " Mayor of London," but " Greater ^ord^/wW-
of London ;" or Academia Oxoniensis, " the University of Oxford," and ofthTword'
Universitas Oxoniensis, not "the University," but "the Generality of sacerdos.
Oxford ;" and such like.
Fulke. Beza's words agree to us, as well as German's Fulke,
lips, that were nine mile asunder. For if this English word
" priest," by custom of speech, did signify no more than the
Greek word TrpeafivTepo^, we would no less use it in our trans-
lations, than ** bishops'" and " deacons :" which offices though
they be shamefully abused by the papists, yet the abuse
of the words maketh no confusion between the ministers of
the law and of the gospel, as this word " priest" doth, by
which the Jewish sacrificers are rather understood, than
preachers of the gospel and ministers of the sacraments.
But whereas the etymology of tliis Enghsh word "priest"
cometh from presbyter, you charge us with great folly and
mahce, that for sacerdos we translate " priest," and for pres-
byter " elder." To this I answer. We are not lords of the
common speech of men ; for if we were, we would teach them
to use their terms more properly : but seeing we cannot
change the use of speech, we follow Aristotle's counsel, which
268
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH ["cH.
is to speak and use words as the common people useth,
but to imderstand and conceive of things according to the
nature and true property of them. Although, for my part,
I like well of the French translation, which for lepel^, or
sacerdotes, always translateth sacrificateurs, " sacrificers ;" and
for preshyteri, where they signify the ministers of the word
and sacraments, prestres, " priests." But this diversity being
only of words, and not of matter or meaning, reasonable men
will take an answer ; fools and quarrellers will never acknow-
ledge any satisfaction.
Martin, Martin. Again, what exceeding folly is it, to think that by false
23- and profane translation of presbyter into "elder," they might take
away the external priesthood of the new testament, whereas their own
word sacerdos, which, they do and must needs translate "priest," is as
common and as usual in all antiquity as presbyter ; and so much the
more, for that it is used indifferently to signify both bishops and priests,
which presbyter lightly doth not but in the New Testament. As
when Constantine the Great said to the bishops assembled in the council
Kuffin. lib. 1. <^f Nice : Deus vos constituit sacerdotes, &c. " God hath ordained you
''■ ^- priests, and hath given you power to judge of us also." And St Ambrose :
Epist. 32. ad " Wlien didst thou ever hear, most clement prince, that laymen have
num'im"p!' J lodged bishops ? Shall we bend by flattery so far, that forgetting the
Juris sacerdo- I'ight of our priesthood, we should yield up to others that which God
'^''^" hath commended to us?" And therefore doth St Chrysostom entitle
his six books, De Sacerdotio, Of Priesthood, concerning the dignity and
In Apoiog. calling not only of mere priests, but also of bishops : and St Gregory
orat*"*^"^' Nazianzene, handling the same argument, saith, "that they execute
X,oio-T(o priesthood together with Christ." And St Ignatius saith : " Do nothing
eiv Epist 1 ^'ithout the bishops ; for they are priests, but thou the deacon of the
adHieronem. priests." And in the Greek liturgies or masses, so often : o te/jeis, "Then
Sacerdotes. . "
iepev^. the priest saith this and that," signifying also the bishop when he saith
diuKovo^ mass; and * St Denys saith sometime, ^?'cA?saceJ*rfo<eTO cum sacerdotibus,
lepdpxv" "The high priest or bishop with the priests ;" whereof come the words
a-vv jois Uparevfiv, lepovpyelv, lepdrevpa, UpaTfia, tepovpyia, in the ancient Greek
• Ec. Hiera. fathers, for the sacred function of priesthood, and executing of the same.
c. 3.
Martin, Martin. If then the heretics could possibly have extinguished
^'^' priesthood m the word presbyter, yet you see it would have remained
still in the words sacerdos and sacerdotium, which themselves translate
" priest" and " priesthood ;" and therefore we must desire them to trans- '
late us a place or two after their owti mamier. First, St Augustine
Lib. 8. c. 27. speaking thus : Quis unquam audivit sacerdotem ad altare stantem etiam
super reliquias martyrum dicere, Offero tibi,Petre, et Paule, vel Cypriane?^
[} The passage of Augustine here referred to is incorrectly quoted.
In the Paris reprint of the Benedictme edition it stands thus : " Quis
De Civ. Dei.
VI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 269
" Who ever heard that a priest standing at the altar, even over the relics
of the martyrs, said, I offer to thee, Peter, and Paul, or Cyprian" ? So,
we trow, they must translate it. Again, Nos uni Deo et martyr urn et Lib.22. civ.
nostra sacrificium immolamus, ad quod sacrifidum sicut homines Dei
suo loco et ordine nominantur, non tamen a sacerdote invocantur. Deo
quippe, non ipsis sacrifieat, quamvis in memoria sacrificet eorum, quia Dei
sacerdos est, non illoriim. Ipsutn vero sacrificium corpus est Christi^.
We think they wUl and must translate it thus : " We offer sacrifice to
the only God both of martyrs and ours, at the which sacrifice, as men
of God they (martyrs) are named in their place and order ; yet are they
not invocated of the priest that sacrificeth. For he sacrificeth to God, So as he said
and not to them, though he sacrifice in the memory of them, because to thee, Peter^
he is God's priest, and not theirs. And the sacrifice itself is the body of '^'^'
Christ."
Fulke. Nay, " what exceeding folly is it to think" that Fulke,
an external sacrificing office can be established in the New '
Testament (which never calleth the ministers thereof sacer-
dotes, or l€pe1<i), because men of later time have improperly
transferred those terms mito the " elders" or " priests" of
the New Testament ! Certainly among so many names as
the scriptm:'e giveth them, if sacrificing for the quick and the
dead had been the principal part of their function, as by you
papists hath been accomited, is it credible, that the Holy
Ghost would never have called them \epe1s, as well, yea,
and rather than the " sacrificers" of the old testament ?
Seeing therefore the Holy Ghost had made such a broad
difference between their names and offices, those ancient
fathers that confounded those names, wliich the Spirit of God
would have to be distinct, cannot be excused ; although they
autem audivit aliquaudo fidelium stantem sacerdotem ad altare etiam
super sanctum corpus martyris ad Dei honorem cultumque constructum,
dicere in precibus, Offero tibi sacrificium, Petre, vel Paule, vel Cypriane 1
Augustmi Opera, Vol. vii. p. 349. Edit. Paris. 1838.]
[^ This quotation also, as here given, differs from the Benedictine
edition, where it stands thus : " Sed uni Deo et martyrum et nostro ;
ad quod sacrificium, sicut homines Dei, qui mundum in ejus confes-
sione vicerunt, suo loco et ordine nominantur, non tamen a sacerdote,
qui sacrifieat, invocantur. Deo quippe, non ipsis sacrifieat, quam-
vis in memoria sacrificet eorum; quia Dei sacerdos est, non illorum.
Ipsum vero sacrificium corpus est Christi, quod non offertur ipsis, quia
hoc sunt et ipsi." p. 1073. At 'nostro' there is a various reading with
this remark : " Hie editi addunt, sacrificium immolamus : quod abest a
manuscriptis." V. Lectiones Variant es, p. 1288, upon the passage.]
270 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
never dreamed of the mischief that followed, that the altar of
the cross being overthrown, and the only and sufficient sacri-
fice, which Christ our "high sacrificer" offered once for all,
being judged imperfect, a new " altar," a new " sacrifice," and
a new " sacrificing priesthood" should be set up in the stead
of it. Wherefore the improper speeches of the ancient writers
are no warrant for us, either to translate the scripture ac-
cording to . their improper speaking, or to set up a new
sacrifice and function of sacrificing contrary to their mean-
ing. They named " sacrifice" and " offering," but they meant
not propitiatory sacrifice, but only of pi^ayers, or praises
and giving of thanks. They named lepel^ and sacerdotes,
but they meant, according to the general etymology of those
words, such as were occupied in distributing holy things ; not
such as should verUy sacrifice the body of Christ again to-
his Father, but offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving in the
sacrament of the Lord's supper, which after a certain manner,
Epist. 23. Bo- as St Augustine saith, is called the body of Christ, when indeed
nifac. Decon- ..." /iiii ^ t % t i» /^^ • at
seer, distinct, it IS the sacramcut of the body and blood oi Christ. And
2. cap. hoc ... "
^idlm^iffii^ it 13 called the " sacrificing" of the body of Christ, not in
*^^- truth of the thing, but a signifying mystery, as Gracian
citeth out of Jerome.
Martin, Martin. Likewise when St Amtrose saith, " The consecration (of
25 • . .
Lib d s ^^^ body of Christ) with what words is it, and by whose speech 1 Of
c. 4. our Lord Jesus. For in the rest that is said, there is praise given to
God, prayer made for the people, for kings, and others; but when it
Sacerdos. cometh that the venerable sacrament must be consecrated, now the priest
useth not his own words, but he useth the words of Christ '^.^ And St
[} Si enim sacramenta quamdam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum
sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex
hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina acci-
piunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis
Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi
est; ita sacramentum fidei fides est. Nihil est autem aliud credere,
quam fidem habere. Augustini Epist. ad Bonifacium. Epist. xoviii.
c. ix. ordo novus. Opera, Vol. ii. p. 400.]
[^ Consecratio autem quibus verbis est, et cujus sermonibus 1 Domini
Jesu. Nam reliqua omnia quae dicuntur in superioribus, a sacerdote
dicuntur, laudes Deo deferuntur, oratio petitur pro populo, pro regibus,
pro ceteris; ubi venitur ut conficiatur venerabile sacramentum, jam
non suis sermonibus utitur sacerdos, sed utitur sennonibus Christi.
Ambrosii de Sacramentis, Lib. iv. c. iv. Opera, Vol. ii. p. 368.]
VI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 271
Chrysostom in very many places saith: " The sacred oblation itself, Hom. 2. in
whether Peter, or Paul, or any meaner priest whatsoever offer it, is Saeerdos.
the very same that Christ gave unto his disciples, and which now the ^''^^ °^'
priests do make or consecrate. Why so, I pray thee ? because not men
do sanctify this, but Christ himself, which before consecrated the same^,"
And again : " It is not man that maketh the body and blood of Christ,
but he that was crucified for us, Christ ; the words are uttered by the sacerdotis.
priest's mouth, and by God's power and grace are the things proposed
consecrated. For this, saith he, 'is my body V With this word are the
things proposed consecrated."
Fulke. These testimonies are heaped up without any need, Fulke,
for the improper usage of these words 'lepem, or saeerdos, '
in the ancient writers we do acknowledge : but in the holy-
scripture you are not able to bring one place where preshy-
teri of the New Testament are called sacerdotes, or teoets.
Wherefore of the improper applying of these names to the
ministers of the New Testament, can follow no consequence
of external " sacrifice," or " altar," which you m^ge, except
" sacrifice" and " altar" be likewise used improperly, as where
the table is called " an altar," the bread and wine " a sacri-
fice," as in IrenaBus^ lib. iv. cap. xxxii. where also he saith,
that the " sacrifices" do not sanctify the man, but the con-
science of the man being pure sanctifieth the " sacrifice,"
and causeth God to accept it as of a friend, cap. xxxiv. :
|_' 'H irpoacpopa ^ av-r^ ea-ri, mv 6 tvxoI>v TrpoaeveyKj], kuv HavXos,
Kav Herpos, 17 airij iariv, tjv 6 Xpiaros rots p.adT)Ta1s edcoKf, Kal fju
injv oi lepels ttoiovctlv ovhev avrq iXdrrcov (Kfivrjs, on /cat Tavrrjv ovk
avdpanroi ayia^ov(Tiv, dXX' avros 6 Ka\ eKeivrjv ayiaaas. Chrysost. in
2 Epist. ad Timoth. c. i. Hom. ii. Opera, Vol. xi. p. 671. Edit. Mont-
faucon. Par. 1734.]
P Ov8e yap avdpanros fariv 6 iroiatv ra TvpoKeipuva yeveadai a-wpia
Kai alpa Xptarov' aXK avros 6 aravpcoSfls virep fjpSiv XpiaTos. (rx^pa
TrXrjpcov e(TTr]K(v 6 Upeiis, ra p-qpara (f)deyy6p€vos eKelva' j; 8e hvvapis
Ka\ fj x"P'f ■'■0*^ Qiov ea-Ti. rovro pov earl to (Tu>pa, (f)r](n. Chrysost.
de Proditione Judae, Hom. i. Opera, Vol. 11. p. 384.]
[^ Quoniam autem non indigens Deus servitute eorum, sed propter
ipsos quasdam observantias in lege praeceperit, plenissime prophetae
indicant. Et rursus quoniam non indiget Deus oblatione eorum, sed
propter ipsum qui offerat hominem, manifeste Dominus docuit, quem-
admodum ostendimus. Irenaei, Lib. iv. Contra Haeres. c. xvii. Opera,
p. 247.
Igitur ecclesise oblatio, quam Dominus docuit offerri in universo
mundo, purum sacrificium reputatum est apud Deum, et acceptum est
272 A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH [CH.
which cannot in anywise be true of the natural body of
Christ.
Martin, Martin. And so by these places, where themselves translate sace)-dos
Presbyteri. a " priest," they may learn also how to translate presbyteros in St Jerome,
saying the very same thing, " that at their prayers the body and blood
of our Lord is made ;" and in another place, " that with their sacred
month they make our Lord's body." Likewise when they read St
Ambrose ' against the Novatians, that God hath granted licence to his
Sacerdotibus. priests to release and forgive as well great sins as little, without excep-
tion ; and in the Ecclesiastical History^, how the Novatian heretics taught
that such as were fallen into great sins, should not ask for remission of
Sacerdote. the priest, but of God only : they may learn how to translate presbyteros
in St Jerome^, and in the Ecclesiastical History, where the one saith thus :
Sozom. lib. 7- Episcopus et presbyter, cum peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus
Soerat. lib. 5. sit, qui solvendus ; and the other speaketh, de presbytero pcenitentiario,
of an extraordinary priest, that heard confessions and enjoined penance,
who afterward was taken away, and the people went to divers ghostly
fathers, as before. And especially St Chrysostom* wiU make them
ei: non quod indigeat a nobis sacrificium, sed quoniam is qui offert,
glorificatur ipse in eo quod offert, si acceptetur munus ejus. Irenaei,
Lib. IV. Contra Hsereses. c. xviii. p. 250. Edit. Paris, 1710.]
p Similiter impossibile videbatur per poenitentiam peccata dimitti ;
concessit hoc Cliristus apostolis suis, quod ab apostolis ad sacerdotum
oflficia transmissum est. Ambrosii de Poenitent. Lib. ii. c. ii. Opera,
Vol. II. p. 419.]
P Sed aiunt se, exceptis gravioribus criminibus, relaxare veniam
levioribus. Non hoc quidem auctor vestri erroris Novitianus, qui ne-
mini poenitentiam dandam putavit ; ea scilicet contemplatione, ut quod
ipse non posset solvere, non ligaret, ne ligando sperari a se faceret
solutionem. In eo igitur patrem vestrum propria damnatis sententia,
qui distinctionem peccatorum facitis, quae solvenda a vobis putetis, et
qua sine remedio esse arbitremini: sed Dens distinctionem non facit,
qui misericordiam suam promisit omnibus, et relaxandi licentiam sacer-
dotibus suis sine uUa exceptione concessit. Ambrosii de Poenitent. Lib. i.
c. iii. Opera, Vol. ii. p. 393.]
[^ Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi et caro intelligitur : vel spirituaUs
ilia atque divina, de qua ipse dixit, Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis
mens vere potus; et. Nisi manducaveritis carnem meum, et sanguinem
meuni biberitis, non habebitis vitam ceternam: vel caro et sanguis, quae
crucifixa est, et qui miiitis effusus est lancea. Comment. Hieronymi
in Epist. ad Ephes. c. i. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 328.]
P Ei^oi' i^ovaiav ot Tcjv 'lov8ai(ov kpels' koX oiada ttcos TrfpifiaxrjTov
nv TO Twv lepeav rare ; ovroi be ov \iivpav crdfiaTos, aW anadapcriav
•<lfv)(rjs, ovK an-aXXayeio-av SoKt/io^eif, aXX* airoKKaTTeiv iravTekuii eXa^ov
f^ovaiav. wore ol tovtcop vnepopavres ttoXXw km tS)V irepl Aa6av eUv
VI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 273
understand what these preshyteri were, and how they are to be called in
English, who telleth them in their own word, that sacerdotes, " the Lib. .•j. de Sa-
priests of the new law, have power, not only to know, but to purge the
filth of the soul ; therefore whosoever despiseth them, is more worthy
to be punished than the rebel Dathan and his compUces."
FulJce. Where St Jerome iiseth the word preshyteri, we Fulke,
will make no great curtesy to translate "priests ;" knowing ^*^-
that when he saith, at then' prayers "the body and blood
of Christ is made," he meaneth the sacrament of the body and
blood of Christ, as he himself saith in another place : Du-
jpliciter sanguis Christi et caro intelligitur ; " The blood and
flesh of Cln^ist is understood two manner of ways," either that
spiritual and divine, whereof he himself said, ' My flesh is
meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed ; and except ye
shall eat my flesh and di'ink my blood, you shall not have
eternal life ;"" or else the flesh and blood which was cruci-
fied, and wliich was shed by the spear of the soldier." This
and such other places teach us to understand St Jerome,
if he speak any where obscurely or improperly of the mystery
of our Lord's supper. We grant with Ambrose, that God
hath given authority to all the ministers of the word to
remit all sins that be remissible. But this do not you grant;
for you reserve some to the bishops, and some to the pope
alone to remit: wherein you go clean against Ambrose, who
favoureth you not so much by the term sacerdos, which you
say he useth, as he condemneth your partial and popish
reservation of cases, when he alloweth every priest to for-
give as well great sins as httle, without exception. St
Jerome you cite at large, as it seemeth, to insinuate auricular
confession : but the whole saying you liked not, because it
sheweth how they forgive sins. It is written in Matt. Lib. iii.
cap. 16. upon those words spoken to Peter, " Unto thee will
I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven," &c. Isfum
locum episcopi et preshyteri non intelligentes^ , &c. "This place
evayea-repoi, Koi fi(i(ovos a^ioi Tificoplas. Chrysost. de Sacerdotio, Lib. iii.
Opera, Vol. i. p. 284.]
[* Istum locum episcopi et preshyteri non intelligentes, aliquid sibi
de Pharisaeorum assumunt supercUio : ut vel damnent innocentes, vel
solvere se noxios arbitrentur; quum apud Deum non sententia sacer-
dotuni, sed reoruin vita quaeratur, Legimus in Levitico de leprosis,
ubi jubentur, ut ostendant se sacerdotibus ; et si lepram habuerint, tunc
[fulke.J
274 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [
CH.
bishops and priests not understanding, take upon them some-
what of the pride of the Pharisees : so that they tliink they
may either condemn the innocents, or loose the guilty persons :
whereas with God, not the sentence of the priests, hut the life
of the persons accused is inquired of. We read in Levi-
ticus of the lepers, where they are commanded to shew
themselves to the priests; and if they have the leprosy, then
by the priest they are made unclean : not that priests make
lepers and unclean persons, but that they may have know-
ledge of him that is a leper, and him that is no leper ; and
may discern who is clean or who is unclean. Therefore even
as the priest doth there make the leper clean or unclean ; so
here also the bishop and priest doth bind or loose, not them
that be innocent or guilty, but according to his office, when
he shall hear the variety of sinners, he knoweth who is
to be bound, and who is to be loosed." But where you
say, the people went to diverse ghostly fathers, as before,
when that extraordinary penitentiary priest was taken away
for the adultery of a deacon at Constantinople'; you speak
beside the book, to make the ignorant believe that the people
went to auricular shrift. For in Constantinople, where this
privy confession was taken away, the people were left to their
own consciences. At Rome, the same time, great offenders
did open penance, neither were there any such diverse ghostly
fathers, as you speak of. That Chrysostom saith. Lib. iii. de
sacerdotio, we receive it, being so understood, as it be not
contrary to that I cited even now out of Jerome. But what
maketh all this against translating presbyter " an elder" ?
Martin, Martin. Now then, to conclude this point, seeing we have such a
Hei) xii cloud of witnesses, as the apostle speaketh, even from Christ's time,
that testify not only for the name, but for the very principal functions
a sacerdote immundi fiant : non quo sacerdotes leprosos faciant et immun-
dos; sed quo habeant notitiam leprosi et non leprosi, et possint dis-
cernere qui mundus, quive immundus sit. Quomodo ergo ibi leprosum
sacerdos mundum vel immundum facit ; sic et hie alligat vel solvit
episcopus et presbyter, non eos qui insontes sunt vel noxii ; sed pro
officio suo, quum peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit,
quive solvendus. Comment. Hieronymi in Matth. c. xvi. Opera,
Vol. IV. p. 75.]
\2 See Socrates, Eccl. Hist. lib. v. cap. xix. Sozomen. vii. xvi.]
VI.] TRANSLATIONS OP THE BIBLE. 275
of external priesthood, in offering the sacrifice of Christ's body and
blood, in remitting sins, and so forth ; what a peevish, malicious, and
impudent corruption is this, for the defacing of the testimonies of the
holy scriptures tending thereunto, to seek to scratch advantage of the
word presbyter, and to make it signify an "elder," not a "priest;"
presbyterium, " eldership," rather than " priesthood :" as if other new-
fangled companions, that would forge an heresy that there were no apos-
tles, should for that purpose translate it always "legates;" or that there
were no angels, and should translate it always " messengers ;" and that
baptism were but a Judaical ceremony, and should translate it " wash-
ing ;" which Castaleo did much more tolerably in his translation than
any of these should, if he did it only of curiosity and folly. And if to
take away all distinction of "clergy" and "laity," the protestants should
always translate clerum " lot" or " lottery," as they do translate it for ciems.
the same purpose " parish" and " heritage ;" might not Beza himself « j^ j pet. v.
control them, saying, " that the ancient fathers transferred the name ad^NeiSr de
clerus to the college of ecclesiastical ministers'' 1 'i'- ^'^"'^"
° rum, Ep. 2.
c. 5.
FulJce. A cloud of testimonies indeed you have heaped Fulkk,
together, not, as the apostle did, to uphold the certainty of
faith, but to obscure the hght of truth. For our translation
of irpeafii/Tepos " an elder" is true, clear and plain, without
ambiguity : insomuch as the vulgar Latin interpreter, who
(as it seemeth) was a Grecian, and therefore useth gladly many
Greek terms, doth yet translate this word almost twice as
often senior, or major natu, as he doth presbyter, when he
speaketh of the ministers of the gospel. How the ancient
writers apphed unto them improperly the name of "sacrificer,"
as unto the sacrament the name of " oblation" or " sacrifice," I
have spoken already sufficiently. Our translation therefore is
notliing like your vain supposal of new-fangled companions,
which to deny "apostles," "angels," and "baptism," would turn
the words into " legates," " messengers," and " washing."
Whereas we have no purpose to deny any office or function of
the church appointed by Christ, but to distinguish in name, as
his Spirit in the scriptures doth always, the sacrificers of the
Old Testament from the ministers of the New Testament.
The word clerus, 1 Pet. v. which we translate "parish" or
"heritage," yourselves m your notes of that place confess to
comprehend in signification "all Christians," which you are not
able to prove, that in St Peter's time it was transferred
unto the "college of ecclesiastical ministers," as Beza saith it
was afterward : wherefore it is one of your accustomed slan-
ders, to say we translate it so of purpose to take away
18—2
276 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
all distinction of clergy and laity; when all men know, that
wheresoever our churches are estabhshed, we retain the
distinction, and so think it necessary always.
Martin, Martin. But, alas ! the effect of this corruption and heresy concem-
^^' ing priests, hath it not wrought within these few years such contempt
of all priests, that nothing is more odious in our country than that
name ; which before was so honourable and venerable, and now is among
all good men? If "ministry" or "eldership" were grown to estimation
instead thereof, somewhat they had to say: but that is yet more contemp-
tible, and especially "elders" and "eldership;"" for the queen's majesty
and her councillors will permit none in government of any church in
England ; and so they have brought all to nothing else but profane laity.
And no marvel of these horrible inconveniences: for as the sacrifice
and priesthood go together, and therefore were both honourable together ;
so when they had, according to Daniel's prophecy, abolished the daily
sacrifice out of the church, what remained, but the contempt of priests
and clergy, and their offices ? so far forth, that for the holy sacrifice' sake
priests are called in great despite " massing priests," of them that little
consider, or less care, what notable holy learned fathers of all ages since
Chap. vi. Christ's time this their rejiroach toucheth and concerneth, as by the testi-
monies before alleged is manifest, and whereof the reader may see a
pecuUar chapter in the late Apology of the English Seminaries.
FuLKE, FulJce. A marvellous corruption, for us to call them
a el(Jers,"" whom you in your translation call "ancients," and
the vulgar Latin before us both called seniores! But what is
come to pass, I pray you, by tliis wonderful corruption ?
The name of " popish priests" is so contemptible, that nothing
is more odious in England. And good cause, why ; both
for their blasphemy agamst God, and traitorous practices
against the honom^able state of the realm, and our most gra-
cious queen. But " elders" and " eldersliip" (you ween) is
more contemptible, because " the queen's majesty and her
councillors will permit none in government of any churches
in England, and so they have brought all to notliing else, but
'profane laity.' " This traitorous slander of yours is as true
as all the rest : for although the queen's majesty and the
council do not permit such consistories of elders for only
disciphne and government, as be in some other churches;
yet do they not only permit, but also maintain and reve-
rence such elders, bemg signified by the Greek word
7rpea(3uT€poi, as are necessary for the government of the
church in doctrine, sacraments, and discipline, to the salva-
VI.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLK. 277
tion of God's people. The daily sacrifice mentioned in
Daniel was the morning and evening sacrifice of the old
law, whereunto yom* blasphemous sacrifice of the mass
hath no resemblance. You may not therefore look to
recover the credit of massing priests by that sacrifice,
which, being once instituted by God, was at length taken
away by the only sacrifice of Christ's death ; agamst wliich
all the apologies in the world shall never be able to defend
your massing priesthood. As for the chapter of Allen's
Apology, whereunto you refer us, [it] containeth certain quo-
tations, and a few sentences of the ancient writers, wliich
have been answered an hundred times, to justify massing
priests ; but all in vain : for never shall he prove that any
one, from the eldest which he named unto Beda, which
is the youngest, was such a massing priest in all points,
as those traitors are, which by the queen's laws and
edict arc proscribed and prohibited : I mean not, for their
maimers, but for their mass and all opinions incident
thereunto.
278
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
CHAPTER VII.
Heretical Translation against Purgatory, Limbus Patrum,
Christ's descending into Hell.
Martin, 1
Calvin's In-
stitutiors,
lib. 2. c. 16.
sect. 10. and
in his Cate-
chism.
FULKE, 1.
Martin. Having now discovered their corrapt translations for de-
facing of the church's name, and abolishing of priest and priesthood ;
let us come to another point of very great importance also, and which,
by the wonted consequence or sequel of error, includeth in it many
erroneous branches. Their principal malice then being bent against
purgatory, that is, against a place where christian souls be purged by
suffering of temporal pains after this life, for surer maintenance of their
erroneous denial hereof they take away and deny all third places,
saying that there was never from the beginning of the world any other
place for souls after this life, but only two ; to wit, heaven for the
blessed, and hell for the damned. And so it followeth by their heretical
doctrine, that the patriarchs, prophets, and other good holy men of the
Old Testament, went not after their deaths to the place called " Abra-
ham's bosom," or limbus patrum, but immediately to heaven : and so
again by their erroneous doctrine it followeth, that the fathers of the
Old Testament were in heaven before our Saviour Christ had suffered
death for their redemption ; and also by their erroneous doctrine it fol-
loweth, that our Saviour Christ was not the first man that ascended and
entered into heaven ; and moreover by their heretical doctrine it foUow-
eth, that our Saviour Christ descended not into any such third place,
to deliver the fathers of the Old Testament out of their prison, and to
bring them triumphantly with him into heaven, because by their erro-
neous doctrine they were never there ; and so that article of the apostles'
creed concerning our saviour Christ's descending into heU, must either
be put out by the Calvinists, as Beza did in liis confession of his faith,
printed anno 15()4 ; or it hath some other meaning, to wit, either the
lying of his body in the grave, or (as Calvin and the purer Cal-
vinists, his scholars, will have it) the suffering of hell pains and distresses
upon the cross. Lo the consequence and coherence of these errors and
heresies !
Fulke. We may be bold to say with St Augustine,
We believe, according to the authority of God, that the
kingdom of heaven is the first place appointed for God's
elect, and that hell is the second place, where all the
reprobate, and such as be not of the faith of Christ, shall
suffer eternal punishment. Tertium penitus ignoramus,
imo nee esse in scripturis Sanctis invenimus : "The third
VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 279
place we are utterly ignorant of, yea, and that it is not
we find in the holy scriptures." But hereof it foUoweth
say you, that the godly of the Old Testament went not
after their deaths to Abrahani"'s bosom, or limbus patrum,
but immediately to heaven. Of limbus patrum, which is
a border of the " pope's hell," I grant it followeth ; but
of Abraham's bosom it followeth none otherwise than if I
should say, "Gregorie Martin went into Cheapside,'"" ergo,
"he went not to London." That the fathers of the Old
Testament were in heaven before our Saviour Christ had
suffered death for their redemption, it is no inconvenience ;
for his death was as effectual to redeem them that lived
before he suffered actually, as them that live since ; be-
cause in God's sight he is " the Lamb that was slain from
the beginning of the world." And the fathers that were
justified by faith in his blood, received the same crown
and reward of righteousness that we do, being justified by
the same means. And yet our Saviour Christ was the
first man, that in his whole manhood ascended and entered
into heaven, into the fulness and perfection of glory, which
is prepared for all God's elect, to be enjoyed after the
general resurrection. That our Saviour Christ descended
into no prison after his death, we verily beUeve ; and yet
we do also constantly beheve the article of our creed,
that "he descended into hell," by suffering in soul the pains
due to God's justice for the sins of all whom he redeemed,
and by vanquishing the devil, and aU the power of hell,
in working the redemption of all the children of God. If
Beza in liis confession had clean left out that article, (which
is untrue,) he had been no more to be blamed than the
authors of the Nicene creed, and many other creeds, in
which it is not expressed, because it is partly contained
imder the article of his sufferings, partly it is in part of
the effect and virtue of his death and redemption.
Martin. These now being the heretical doctrines which they mean Martin, 2.
to avouch and defend, whatsoever come of it ; first, they are at a point
not to care a rush for all the ancient holy doctors, that write with full
consent to the contrary, as themselves confess, calling it their common Beza in i Pet.
error; secondly, they translate the holy scriptures in favour thereof vin's institut.
most corruptly and Avilfully, as in Beza's false translation, who is Calvin's sect. y.
successor in Geneva, it is notorious ; for he, in his New Testament of
280 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
the year 1556, printed by Robertus Stephanas in folio, with annotations,
maketh our Saviour Christ say thus to his Father, Non derelinques
cadaver meum in sepulchro ; " Thou shalt not leave my carcase in the
Hiero. in Pa. grave," Acts ii. for that which the Hebrew, and the Greek, and the
braeo. Latin, and St Jerome, according to the Hebrew, say, Non derelinques
tir£)3 animam meam in inferno, as plainly as we say in English, " Thou shalt
SS>*W"T. "^* \G?i^e my soul in hell." Thus the proj^het David spake it in the
: • Hebrew, Psal. xv. ; thus the Septuagint uttered it in Greek ; thus the
apostle St Peter allegeth it ; thus the holy evangelist St Luke, in the
xf/uX'i" e'^ Acts of the Apostles, chap, ii., recordeth it ; and for this, St Augustine
"°°'"'* calleth him an infidel that denieth it : yet all this would not suffice to
• See his An- make Beza translate it so, because of certain errors, (*as he heretically
not. in 2. Act. temieth them,) which he would full gladly avoid hereby, namely, the
catholic true doctrine of limbus patrum and " purgatory." What need
we say more ? He translateth animam, " a carcase ;" so calling our
Saviour Christ's body, irreverently and wickedly, he translateth infe)--
num "grave.''
FuLKE, 2. Fulke. That many of the christian fathers held this
error, that the godly of the Old Testament were not in
heaven before Clu-ist's death, it is no cause why we should
be afraid to confess the truth revealed to us out of the
holy scriptm-es, to the glory of God. And if the wrong
Vii^Ii^ or ambiguous translation of one Hebrew word, sheol, de-
ceived them that were for the most part ignorant of the
Hebrew tonffue : what reason were it that we should not
in translation reform that error ? But as for Beza's first
translation of the Greek word ^v^n " dead body," and
adr}^ " grave," I have answered at large, cap. i. sect. 31. ;
where also it is shewed, how vainly you take hold of the
English word " carcase," to charge Beza with unreverent
calling of our Saviour Christ's body, when it was dead,
because he calleth it in Latin cadaver.
Martin 3. Martin. Need we take any great labour to prove this to be a foul
corruption, or that it is done purposely, when he confesseth that he thus
translateth, because else it would serve the papists ? Which is as much
to say, as, the word of God, if it be ti-uly and sincerely translated, maketh
indeed for them. For the first part, we will not stand upon it, partly
because it is of itself most absurd, and they are ashamed of it ; partly
because it shall suffice to confute Beza, that two other as famous heretics
as he, Castaleo and Flaccus lUyricus, write against him in this point,
and confute him ; partly also, because we speak not here universally
of all heretical translations, but of the English corruptions specially ;
and therefore we may only note here, how gladly they also woiild say
VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 281
somewhat else for " soul," even in the text, if they durst for shame :
for in the margin of that English translation they say, " or life," " or Bib. an. 1579.
person ;" hereby advertising the reader, that he may read thus if it
please him, " Thou shalt not leave my life in the grave," or, " Thou
shalt not leave my person." As though either man's soul or life were
in the grave, or anima might be translated " person," which the self-
same English bible doth not ; no, not in ,those places where it is evident Acts vii. 14.
that it signifieth " the whole person," For though this word " soul,'' by
a figure, is sometime taken for "the whole man," yet even there they do
not, nor must not translate it otherwise than "soul;" because our
tongue beareth that figure as well as Latin, Greek, or Hebrew; but
here, where it cannot signify " the whole person," it is wicked to translate
it so.
Fulke. If you take more labour than you are well Fulke, 3.
able to bear, yet shall you prove it no heretical corrup-
tion. As Castaleo and Illyricus, the one an heretic, the
other a scliismatic, have inveighed against Beza, so hath
he sufficiently confuted them. But to our English trans-
lation, where in the margin they say "life," or "person,"
when in the text they say " soul ;" what doth this offend
you ? They render the usual Enghsh word for the Greek
word, but they admonish the reader that the word " soul"
in tliis place signifieth not the soul separated from the
body, but either "the life," or "the whole person;" because
that, although the body only be laid in the grave, yet
according to vulgar speech and sense the whole man is
said to be bm-ied, and liis life seemeth to be inclosed in
the grave, according to which popular and humane con-
ceit the prophet in that psalm speaketh ; as appeareth
in the latter part of that verse, which is all one in sense
with the former, "neither wilt thou give thy holy one to
see corruption," where corruption, which is proper only to
the body, is there spoken generally of the whole man.
If tliis exposition please you not, yet you have no cause
to find fiiult with the translation, which in that place is
according to the common and ordinary signification of
the Greek word ^v-^rj, "soul;" which, as it is some-^cuii
time taken for the whole person, as you note, Act. vii. 14,
so is it here, as the latter part of the verse doth most
plainly declare'.
\^ "Ort ovK fyKaraXei-^eis Trjv ^vxt)v fiov ds abov, Acts ii. 27. " Quo-
niam non derelinques animam meam in inferno," Vulg.]
282 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [[cH.
Martin, 4. Martin. But as for the word "grave," that they put boldly in the
text, to signify that, howsoever you interpret " soul," or whatsoever you
put for it, it is not meant according to St Augustine and the faith of the
whole catholic church, that his soul descended into hell, whiles his body
was in the grave ; but that his soul also was in the grave, howsoever
that is to be understood. So making it a certain and resolute conclusion,
that the holy scripture in this place speaketh not of Christ's being in
hell, but m the grave ; and that according to his soul, or life, or person.
See Vigors' or, as Beza will have it, " his carcase or body ;" and so " his soul in
no"i°5!'and hell," as the holy scripture speaketh, shall be " his body in the grave,"
eincepb. ^^ Beza plainly speaketh, and the Bezites covertly insinuate ; and white
shall be black, and chalk shall be cheese, and every thing shall be any
thing that they will have it. And aU this their evident false translation
must be to our miserably deceived poor souls the holy scripture and
God's word.
FuLKE, 4. Fulke. The Greek word a5>j9 well beareth to be trans-
lated in some places " a grave," and here the latter part of
the verse speaketh of corruption, which cannot be under-
stood to be but "in the grave ;" and so doth St Peter under-
stand it, saying, " that David the patriarch died, and was
buried, and his sepulchre remaineth with us unto this day:"
and St Paul upon the same verse of the psalm saith, " he
saw corruption." Both the apostles therefore interpreting
this verse of the resurrection of Christ, we think it indeed a
"resolute conclusion,"" that the scripture in tliis place speaketh
not of Christ's being in hell, which we acknowledge in the
article of our creed, but of his burial and resurrection. Your
trifling of "wliite and black," "chalk and cheese," may seem
pleasant rhetoric to gross ears, whom you seek to fill with such
vanities : but the wiser sort, that are acquainted with figura-
tive speeches, will think it nothing strange, if words be not
always taken in their usual and proper signification. That
{^22 the Hebrew word nephesh, which the prophet in that verse
of the psalm useth, is taken divers times in the scripture
for " a dead body," I have before proved more plainly than
ever you shall be able to deny : where you may, if you
be disposed to sport yourself, use your figurative compari-
son of "white and black," "chalk and cheese ;" but you shall
sooner of white make black, of chalk cheese, than you can
possibly avoid the clear light of those texts, which was seen
even of your own vulgar Latin interpreters.
VIl.j TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 283
Martin. Where we cannot but marvel, why they are afraid to trans- Martin, 5.
late the words plainly in this place, "of his soul being in hell ;" whereas
in the creed they admit the words, and interpret them, that by suffering
hell pains upon the cross, so " he descended into hell," and no otherwise.
Why did they not here also keep the words for the credit of their trans-
lation ; and afterward, if they would needs, give them that gloss for
maintenance of their heresy ? This mystery we know not, and would
gladly learn it of the puritan Calvinists, whose English translation
perhaps this is. For the grosser Calvinists, being not so pure and precise
in following Calvin as the puritans be, that have well deserved that
name above their fellows, they in their other English bibles have in Bib. an. i562.
this place discharged themselves of false translation, saying plainly, ^""^ '^^^'
"Thou shalt not leave my soul in helF." But in what sense they say *seeLmd.
so, it is very hard to guess ; and perhaps themselves cannot tell yet "^"''^'- p- ^^•
what to make of it, as appeareth by M. Wliitaker's answer to F. Cam- whitaker,
pion. And he is now called a bishop among them, and proceeded doctor Si.Htes2,bp.
in Oxford, that could not obtain his grace to proceed doctor in Cam- ?^ ?,*; ■f^*'^^'
1/-, "^ Wales.
bndge, because he preached Christ's descending into hell ; and the
puritans in their second admonition to the parliament, p. 43, cry out
against the politic Calvinists, for that in the creed of the apostles, (made
in English metre, and sung openly in their churches, in these words'',
" His spirit did after tliis descend, into the lower parts, to them that
long [in darkness were, the true light of their hearts,") they favour his
descendmg into hell very much, and so consequently may thereby build
limbuspatrum and "purgatory." And the puritans in their second reply
against M, Whitgift's defence, p. 7, reprehend one of their cliiefest
Calvinistical martyrs for assuming, as they term it, a gross descending
of our Saviour Christ into hell. Thus, the puritans confess plainly their
heretical doctrine, against Christ's descending into hell.
[} " Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell." Acts ii. 27. Edits. 1562,
1568. 1584. "Thou wilt not leave my soul in grave," 1560, 1579.]
P William Hughes received liis first education in Oxford, but sub-
sequently went to Christ College, Cambridge, where he took his degrees
in arts, and holy orders ; and being soon after made chaplain to Thomas
Howard, duke of Norfolk, he attended him to Oxford in 1568, where he
was incorporated bachelor of divinity, as he stood at Cambridge. The
year after, says Wood, the said duke writing letters to Dr Laur. Hum-
phrey in his behalf, he was, by his endeavours made to the Vice-Chan-
cellor and convocation, permitted to proceed in his faculty. He was
promoted to the episcopal see of St Asaph in 1573. Wood's Athenae
Vol. II. 844.]
P The lines in Sternhold and Hopkins, upon the twelve Articles of
the Christian Faith, are these :
" His soul did after this descend
Into the lower parts, '
A dread unto the wicked sprites.
But joy to faithful hearts."]
284 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
FuLKE, 5. Fulke. By confessing in our creed that Christ "descended
into hell," you might know, (but that you had rather be igno-
rant, that you might marvel still,) that we purposed not in
translating this place to deny that article, as you falsely
slander us ; but because this place might seem unto the
ignorant to confirm the error of Christ's descending into
limhus patrum, as it doth not, if it be rightly under-
stood, it was thought good of some translators, that (seeing
this verse must have the same sense in the Greek sermon
of Peter, that it hath in the Hebrew psalm of David, and
the Greek word q^m, used by the evangelist instead of
^iXtp the Hebrew word sheol, may bear to signify a "grave," as the
Hebrew word doth most usually,) by translating it the "grave,"
to shew that this verse in Greek maketh no more for that
error of descending into limhus, than the same doth in
Hebrew. As for yom^ distinction of gross Calvinists and
puritans, it may be packed up among the rest of your quar-
rels and slanders. What Master Whitaker hath written in his
answer to friar Campion, he is able to explain unto you himself,
if you do not imderstand him. That the bishop of Saint
Asaph did once favour your error in some part, and for that
was misliked of the University of Cambridge, it is as true, as
that afterward, refornung his judgment at Oxford, where he
proceeded, he was also incorporated doctor at Cambridge.
The Enghsh metre upon the creed, except it be drawn to an
allegory, in my judgment cannot be defended ; which judg-
ment I declared openly at Paul's cross, fourteen or fifteen
years ago. Master Latimer's error of Clirist suiFering tor-
ments in hell, after his death, is justly reprehended, by whom-
soever it be.^ By all which I know not what may be rightly
gathered, but that we flatter not one another in errors; but
[^ In Latimer's sermon on the Passion of Christ, we find him thus
speaking, and affixmg a different sense to the words, "He descended
into hell,"from that which they have been generally considered to bear :
"He descended into hell. I see no inconvenience to say, that Christ
suffered in soul in hell. I singularly commend the exceeding great
charity of Christ, who for our sakes would suffer in hell in his soul.
It sets out the unspeakable hatred that God hath to sin. I perceive
not that it derogates from the dignity of Christ's death ; as in the garden
when he suffered, it derogates nothing from that which he suffered
on the cross."]
VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 285
if any among us be deceived, of what account or credit soever
he be, we spare not to reprove liis error, preferring God's
truth before all worldly and private respects of friendsliip,
countenance, credit, and whatsoever.
Martin. The truth is, howsoever the politic Calvinists speak orMARxiK.e.
write in this pomt, more plausibly and covertly to the people, and more
agreeably to the article of our faith, than either Calvin, or their earnest
brethren, the puritans, do, which write and speak as fantastically and
madly as they tliink; yet neither do they believe this article of the
apostles' creed, or interpret it as the catholic church and ancient holy
fathers always have done, neither can it stand with their new profession
so to do, or with then- English translations in other places. It cannot
stand with their profession ; for then it would follow that the patriarchs,
and other just men of the Old Testament, were in some third place of
rest, caUed " Abraham's bosom," or limhus patrum, tiU our Saviour Christ
descended thither, and delivered them from thence; which they deny
in their doctrine, though they sing it in their metres. Neither can it
stand with their English translations; because in other places, where
the holy scriptures evidently speak of such a place, calling it " hell,"
(because that was a common name for every place and state of souls
departed in the Old Testament, till our Savioui* Christ, by his resur-
rection and ascension, had opened heaven,) there, for " hell," they trans-
late "grave."
Fulke. The truth is, howsoever you slander us with Fulke, fi.
odious names of schism, and diverse Interpretations, we all
agree in the faith of that article, and in the true sense and
meaning thereof. As also we consent against your errors of
limhus patrum, or any descending of Christ into that fan-
tastical place. As for "Abraham's bosom," we account it no
place of descent, or going down, but of ascending; even the
same that our Saviour Christ upon the cross called " para-
dise," Lukexxiii. saying to the penitent thief, "This day thou
shalt be with me in paradise;" which of St Paul is called "the
third heaven," 2 Cor. xii., saying that he was " taken up into
the third heaven, whether in the body, or out of the body,
he knew not, but he was taken up into paradise, and there
heard words that could not be uttered, wliich it is not law-
ful for a man to speak." And that "Abraham's bosom" is a
place far distant from hell, that only text where it is named,
Luke xvi., doth evidently declare. First, the angels carry
the soul of Lazarus into Abraham's bosom : he mio-ht as well
286 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
have said hell, if he had meant hell. But angels use not to
go down into hell. Secondly, it is a place of comfort; for
Lazarus was there comforted. Thirdly, there is a great chaos,
which signifieth an infinite distance, between Abraham and the
rich glutton; which utterly overthroweth that di^eam of lim-
hus, which, signifying a border or edge, supposeth that place
to be hard adjoining to the place of torments. Last of all, if
the article of our faith had been of limbus patrum, or of
"Abraham's bosom," we should have been taught to say, he
descended into limbo patrum, or he descended into Abraham's
bosom, which all christian ears abhor to hear. The word
bSi^W sheol, used in the Old Testament for a common receptacle
of all the dead, signifieth properly a place to receive their
bodies, and not their souls; and therefore most commonly
in our translations is called " the grave."
Martin,?. Martin. As when Jacob saith, Descendam ad filium meum lugens in
Gen. xxxvii. infemum ; " I will go down to my son into hell, mourning :" they
translate, " I wiU go down into the grave unto my son, mourning® :'' as
though Jacob thought that his son Joseph had been buried in a grave;
whereas Jacob thought, and said immediately before, as appeareth in
the holy scripture, that a wild beast had devoured him, and so could
not be presumed to be in any grave : or as though, if Joseph had been
in a grave, Jacob would have gone down to him into the same grave.
For so the words must needs import, if they take " grave" properly ;
but if they take " grave" unproperly, for the state of dead men after
7^)^^ this life, why do they call it "grave," and not *'hell," as the word is
a5))s. in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin ? No doubt they do it to make the igno-
rant reader believe, that the patriarch Jacob spake of his body only, to
descend into the grave to Joseph's body ; for as concerning Jacob's soul,
that was, by their opinion, to ascend immediately after his death to
heaven, and not to descend into the grave. But if Jacob were to ascend
forthwith in soul, how could he say, as they translate, " I will go down
into the grave unto my son" 1 As if according to their opinion he
should say, " My son's body is devoured of a beast, and his soul is gone
up into heaven ; well, I will go down to him into the grave."
FuLKE, 7. Fiilke. A proper quiddity you have found out of Jacob,
supposing liis son to be devoured of wild beasts : yet saith, " I
will go down unto liim mourning;" which you think cannot be
P " I will go doMTi into the grave unto my son mourning," Cran-
mer's Bible, edition, 1562. Bishop's Bible, 1684. Geneva, 1560. 'Ort
KaTo^tjaofiai, npos tov vlov fiov TTfvOatv (Is abov. Gen. xxxvii. 36.")
VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 287
into the grave, because he did not think he was buried. But
you must remember, it is the common manner of speech,
when men say in mourning, they will go to their friends
departed, they mean they will die, although their friends
perhaps were drowned in the sea, or then' bodies burned, or
perhaps lie in desolate places unburied. So Jacob's descend-
ing into the grave signifieth no more but death, by wliich he
knew he should be joined to his son in soul, though he were
not in body. The name of grave is used, because it is usual,
that dead men are buried, though it be not miiversal. And
that the grave is taken commonly for death, it appeareth by
that phrase so often used in the scriptures, "he slept with his
fathers, and was buried;" wliich being spoken mdifferently of
good men and evil, cannot be understood of one place of their
souls, but of death, wliich is common to all, and is proper to
the body, not unto the soul ; for the souls of the departed
sleep not. The like is to be said of the phrase used in Genesis
of Ismael, as well as of the godly patriarchs, "he was laid up
to his people." And lest you should please yourself too much in
your cliildish conceit of Joseph's being devom^ed, (whereof yet
his father was not certain,) you sliaU hear how Isidorus Clarius
translateth the same place in his bible, censured by the depu-
ties of Trent council, Descendam ad jilium meum lugens in
sepidchrum : "I will go down to my son, mourning into my
grave." This is one of the places which he thought meet to be
corrected, according to the Hebrew ; and in other places, where
he is content to use the old word, infernus, he signifieth in
his notes, that he meaneth thereby sepulcrum, " the grave."
And indeed this word infernus signifieth generally any place
beneath; as the Greek word a.^r\<i, which the Greek translators
used for sheol, the Hebrew word, signifieth a place that is
dark and obscure, where nothmg can be seen, such as the
grave or pit is, in which the dead are laid, wliich therefore
of Job is called, "The land of darkness, and the shadow of Job x.
death."
Martin. Gentle reader, that thou mayest the better conceive these Martin, ;
absurdities, and the more detest their guileful corruptions, understand,
as we began to tell thee before, that in the Old Testament, because there
was yet no ascending into heaven, " the way of the holies" (as the apostle Heb. ix. 8.
in his epistle to the Hebrews speaketh) " being not yet made open," Heb. x. 20.
because our Saviour Christ was to dedicate and begin the entrance in
288 A DEFENCE OP THE ENGLISH [cil.
his own person, and by his passion to open heaven ; therefore, we say,
in the Old Testament the common phrase of the holy scripture is, even
of the best men, as well as of others, "that dying they went down"
ad inferos, or ad hifernum: to signify, that such was the state of the
Old Testament before our Saviour Christ's resurrection and ascension,
that every man went down, and not up ; descended, and not ascended :
by descending, I mean not to the grave, which i-eceived their bodies
only, but ad inferos, that is, "to hell," a common receptacle or place
for their souls also departed, as well of those souls that were to be
in rest, as those that were to be in pains and torments. All the souls
both good and bad, that then died, went downward; and therefore the
place of both sorts was called in all the tongues by a word answer-
able to this word "hell," to signify a lower place beneath, not only
of torments, but also of rest.
FuLKE, 8. Fulke. Where you reason that there was no ascending
mto heaven, "because the way of the hohes was not yet made
open, when the first tabernacle was standing," you abuse the
reader and the scripture. For the apostle's meaning is, in
that verse, to shew that to the great benefit of Christians that
first tabernacle is fallen, because that now we have more
Heb. iv. 16. familiar access unto God by Jesus Christ. For whereas
the high priest only but once in the year, and then not with-
out blood, entered into the second most holy tabernacle, be-
cause the way of the hohes, that is, unto the holiest, or sancta
sanctorum, was not then opened ; now our Saviour Christ
having once entered into the holiest place by his own blood,
and foimd eternal redemption, we have by liim, without any
ceremonies, sacrifices, or mediation of any mortal priest, free
Heb. X. m. access unto the throne of grace, even into the holy place, by
the new and living way, Avhich he hath prepared for us. But
all tliis is to be understood of the clear revelation of the
mercy of God m Christ, wliich was obscurely set forth mito
the fathers of the Old Testament ; and not of the eifect and
fruit of his passion, which was the same for their salvation,
that it is for ours. Neither have the souls of the faitliful,
since the coming of Christ, any other place of rest, than the
Heb. xi. 40. fathers had before his incarnation; God providing most wisely,
that they without all the rest of their brethren, that shall be
unto the world's end, shall not be made perfect. And whereas
you say, that all the souls of good and bad then went down-
ward, you are controlled by the wise man, Eccles. iii., where
he speaketh in the person of the carnal man, doubting of
VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 289
that which is not comprehended by reason, but beheved by
faith : " Who knoweth whether the spirit of man ascend up-
ward?"— and more plainly in the last chapter of that book,
where he exhorteth to repentance, shewing in the end, "that
though dust return to the earth from whence it was, yet the
spirit returneth to God that gave it." It returneth to God:
therefore it goeth not down. For who would abide to hear
tliis speech, The souls of the faithful went downward to God :
yea, went into hell to God '? nay, returned downward into
hell to God that gave them ? That common receptacle there-
fore of the dead was the receptacle of their boches, wliich all,
first or last, returned to the earth from whence they were
taken. And where you say, that place was called in aU
tongues by such a word as signifieth a lower place beneath, it
is true of the common receptacle of their bodies, but not of
then* soids. For the soul of Lazarus was not carried by the
angels into hell, but into Abraham's bosom ; which was not
only a place of rest, but also of joy and comfort, contrary to
torments ; between wliich and hell was an infinite distance.
Who would call that a common receptacle, when there was an
infinite distance unpassable from one to the other ?
Martin. So we say in our creed, that our Saviour Christ himself Martin, 9.
descended into "hell," according to his soul: so St Hierome, speaking Epitaph. Ne-
of the state of the old testament, saith : Si Abraham, Isaac, Jacob ^°^' '^ '
in inferno, quis in ccelorum regno ? that is, " If Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob were in hell, who was in the kingdom of heaven V And again :
Ante Christum Abraham apitd inferos : post Christum latro in Paradiso :
that is, " Before the coming of Christ, Abraham was in hell ; after his
coming, the thief was in paradise." And lest a man might object, that Lukexvi.
Lazarus, being in Abraham's bosom, saw the rich glutton afar off in
hell, and therefore both Abraham and Lazarus seem to have been in
heaven : the said holy doctor resolveth it, that Abraliam and Lazarus See s. Au-
gust, in Psal.
Ixxxv. 13.1
[} Aliam etiam opinionem dicam. Fortassis enim apud ipsos inferos
est aliqua pars inferior, quo truduntur impii qui plurimum peccaverunt.
Etenim apud inferos utrum in locis quibusdam non fuisset Abraham,
non satis possumus definire. Nondum enim Dominus venerat ad infer-
num, ut emeret inde omnium sanctomm prsecedentium animas ; et
tamen Abraham in requie ibi erat. Et quidem dives cum torqueretur
apud inferos, cum videret Abraham, levavit oculos. Non eum posset
levatis oculis videre, nisi ille esset superius, ille inferius. Et quid
ei respondit Abraham, cumdiceret. Pater Abraham, mitteLasarum,&;c. ?
(Luke xvi. 22 — 26.) Ergo inter ista duo fortasse inferna, quorum in
[fulkeJ
290 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
also were in hell, but in a place of great rest and refreshing, and
therefore very far off from the miserable wretched glutton that lay in
torments.
FuLKE, 9. Fulke. We say in our creed, that Christ " descended into
hell ;" which being an article of our faith, must have relation to
such benefit as we receive by his descending, namely, that
thereby we are dehvered from the pains of hell. But that
he should descend into limbus patrum, to fetch out the
fathers, (wliich before you said were in prison, now you say
in rest,) we neither say it in our creed, neither doth it
pertain unto us. But Jerome is cited as a favourer of
your opinion, who, I confess, in some part held as you do,
but not altogether. For thus he wr'iteth. in JEpitaph. Nepot^.
After he hath given thanks to Clu'ist for our redemption by
his death : Quid autem miserius homine, qui ceternce mortis
terrore p>rostratus vivendi sensum ad hoc tantuni accepierat
utperiret, &c. "Wliat was more miserable than man before,
which being cast down with terror of eternal death, received
sense of hving for this end only, that he might perish. For
' death reigned from Adam unto Moses, yea, upon those which
have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of
Adam.' If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in hell, who in the
Idngdom of heaven ? If thy friends were under the pun-
uno quieverunt animse justorum, in altero torquentur animae impiorum,
attendens quidam orans hie, jam in corpore Christi positus, et orans
in voce Christi, eruisse Deum animam suam ab inferno inferiore dixit,
quia liberavit se a talibus peccatis per quae posset deduci a^ tormenta
infemi inferioris. Augustin. Enarrat. in Psalmum Ixxxv. c 18. Opera,
Vol. IV. pp. 1303, 1304]
17 Quis autem miserior homine ; qui tetemae mortis terrore prostratus,
vivendi sensum ad hoc tantum acceperat, ut periret? Regnavit enim
mors ab Adam usque ad Moysen, etiam super eos qui non peccaverunt
in similitudinem prcevaricationis Adce. Si Abraham, Isaac et Jacob in
inferno, quis in ccelorum regno? Si amici tui sub poena ofFendentis
Adam, et qui non peccaverant, alienis peccatis tenebantur obnoxii;
quid de his credendum est, qui dixerunt in cordibus suis, non eM Deus ?
qui corrupti et abominabiles facti sunt in voluntatibus suis? qui de-
clinaverunt, simul inutiles facti sunt ; non est qui faciat bonum, non est
usque ad unum? Quod si Lazarus videtur in sinu Abrahse, locoque
refrigerii ; quid simile infernus et regna coelorum ? Ante Christum
Abraham apud inferos: post Christum latro in paradise. Et idcirco
in resurrcctione ejus multa dormientium corpora surrexerunt, et visa
sunt in coelesti Jerusalem. Hieron. Epit. Ncpot. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 267.]
VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 291
ishment of Adam^, and they which sinned not were held
guilty by other men's sins ; what is to be thought of them
which said in their heart, 'there is no God,' &c.? And if
Lazarus be seen in the bosom of Abraham and in a place of
rest, what like hath hell and the kingdom of heaven ? Before
Christ, Abraham in hell; after Christ, the thief in paradise."
In these words Jerome after liis rhetorical manner, amplify-
ing the benefit of our redemption by Christ, doth rather touch
this error, than plainly express it. For first, he maketh
all men miserable before Christ, and cast down with terror
of eternal death ; which is true, if ye consider them with-
out Christ, in wliich state are all men since Christ : but of
all men that Hved before the time of Christ's death, and
yet embraced their redemption by him, it is not true. As
also, that there are some which have not sinned. But that all
this is to be understood, specially of the death of their bodies,
and allegorically of their souls, he addeth immediately, Et
idcirco in resurrectione ejus multa dormientuim corpora, &c.
"And therefore at Ms resurrection many bodies of them that
slept arose, and were seen in the heavenly Jerusalem." See
you not, how he turneth all into an allegory, to set forth the
virtue of Christ's redemption ? who brought all his elect by
his death from hell, and the power of darkness, into the king-
dom of heaven. Furthermore, you bid us see Augustine in
Ps. Ixxxv. 13. Where in the beginning he professeth his
ignorance in discussing the question of the nethermost hell.
First, supposing this world in which we live to be infernum
superius, and the place whither the dead go infernum in-
ferius, from which God hath delivered us, sending thither his
Son, who to tliis infernum or "lower" place came by his birth, Nascendo.
1 , , . , , . . . Moriendo.
to that by his death ; he addeth another opmion, Fortassis
enim apwd ipsos inferos est aliqua pars inferior, &c. " Per-
adventure even in hell itself there is some part lower, in
which the ungodly which have much sinned are delivered.
For whether Abraham had been now in certain places in
hell, we cannot sufficiently define." And afterward when he
hath spoken of the diverse places of Lazarus and the rich
glutton, he concludeth as uncertainly as he began : Ergo inter
istafortasse duo inferna, quorum in uno, &c. " Therefore per-
adventure between these two hells, in one of which the souls of
P Old edition, mirier thp puvixlimcni. Tf Adam and — ]
19 — 2
292 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
the righteous rested, [in the other] the souls of the wicked are
tormented, one attending prayeth in the person of Christ," &c.
Here you may see, what an article of beUef this was with
St Augustine, when he hath nothing to define, but only
bringeth his conjectural opinions and peradventures : also
how he taketh infernmn for any lower place, insomuch
that he calleth tliis world infernum. Wherefore much more
may infernmn signify the " grave," and be so sometimes
translated.
Martin, Martin. His words be these in effect : " If a man will say unto
me, that Lazarus was seen in Abraham's bosom, and a place of refresh-
ing " even before Christ's coming ; true it is, but what is that in com-
parison ? Quid simile in/emus et regna ccelorum ? " Wliat hath hell
and heaven like ?" As if he should say, " Abraham indeed, and La-
zarus, and consequently many other, were in place of rest, but yet
in hell, till Christ came, and in such rest as hath no comparison with the
Ex'^d ^'(f^ '^^^^ ^^ heaven." And St Augustine^ disputing this matter sometime,
Gen. ad lit. and doubting whether Abraham's bosom be called "hell" in the scrip-
lib. 12. c. 33.
ture, and whether the name of hell be taken at any time in the good
part, (for of Christ's descending into hell, and of a third place where
the patriarchs remained until Christ's coming, not heaven, but called
\} Quanquam et illud me nondum invenisse confiteor, inferos appella-
tos, ubi justorum animse requiescunt. Et Christi quidem animam venisse
usque ad ea loca in quibus peccatores cruciantur, ut eos solveret a tor-
mentis, quos esse solvendos occulta nobis sua justitia judicabat, non
immerito creditur. Quomodo enim aliter accipiendura sit quod dictum
est, Quern Deus suscitavit ex mortuis, solutis doloribus inferorum, quia
non poterat teneri ah eis, non video, nisi ut quorumdam dolores apud
inferos eum solvisse accipiamus, ea potestate qua Dominus est, cui omne
genu flectitur, coelestium, teiTestrium, et infernorum ; per quam potes-
tatem etiam illis doloribus, quos solvit, non potuit attineri. Neque
enim Abraham, vel ille pauper in sinu ejus, hoc est in secreto quietis
ejus, in doloribus erat, inter quorum requiem et ilia inferni tomienta
legimus magnum chaos firmatum ; sed nee apud inferos esse dicti sunt.
Contigit enim, inquit, mori inopem ilium, et anferri ab angelis in sinum
Abrahce : mortuus est autem et dives, et sepultus est ; et cum apud inferos
in tormentis esset, et cetera. Videmus itaque inferorum mentionem
non esse factam in requie pauperis, sed in suppliciis divitis. Proinde,
ut dixi, nondum inveni, et adhuc quaero, nee mihi occurrit inferos alicubi
in bono posuisse scripturam duntaxat canonicam: non autem in bono
accipiendum sinum Abrahae, et illam requiem quo ab angelis pius
pauper ablatus est, nescio utrum quisquam possit audire ; et ideo quo-
modo eam apud inferos credamus esse, non video. Augustini de Genesi
ad litteram. Lib. xii. c. 63, 64. Opera, Vol. viii. pp. 509, 510. Vol. in.
p. 702. Edit. Froben. 1556.']
VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 293
Abraham's bosom, he doubted not, but was most assured;) the same
holy doctor in another place, as being better resolved, doubted not upon
these Avords of the psalm, " Thou hast delivered my soul from the in vs. ixxxv.
lower hell", to make this one good sense of this place, that the lower ^^"
hell is it wherein the damned are tormented, the higher hell is that
wherein the souls of the just rested; calling both places by the name
of "help."
Fulke. I have set down his very words indeed, which Fulke,
being well weighed, make nothing so clearly for your fancied ^^'
limhus, as you would have men ween. You say Augustine
doubteth, whether Abraham's bosom in the scripture be called
"hell," Ep. 99, et de Gen. ad lit. Lib. xii. cap. 33. But
there he doth utterly deny it, and in Ps. lxxxv. as by his
words cited before appeareth, he doubteth. So that where
he flatly denieth, with you he doubteth ; and where he
doubteth, with you he is better resolved. Wherefore this
matter, of Abraham -and the faithful being in hell, is no article
of faith ^; except you will say that St Augustine was not re-
solved in the articles of our faith, who touching the tliird
place, whatsoever at divers times he speaketh doubtingly in
his JJi/jyognosticon, ho affirmeth resolutely, that he findeth
in the scriptures, that there is none.
Martin. And surely, of his marvellous humility and wisdom, he Martin,
would have been much more resolute herein, if he had heard the opinion ^^'
of St Jerome, whom he often consulted in such questions, and of other
fathers, who in this pouat speak most plainly, that Abraham's bosom,
or the place where the patriarchs rested, was some part of hell. Ter-
tullian. Lib. iv. advers. Marcion. saith, " I know that the bosom of Loco citato.
Abraham was no heavenly place, but only the higher hell, or the
higher part of hell." Of which speech of the fathers rose afterward
that other name, limhus patrum, that is the vei-y brim or uppermost
and outmost pai-t of hell, where the fathers of the old testament rested.
Thus we see that the patriarchs themselves were as then in hell, though
they were there in a place of rest ; insomuch that St Jerome saith again*,
[^^ Quid his ergo praestiterit qui dolores solvit inferni, in q^iibus
illi non fuerunt, nondum intelligo; praesertim quia ne ipsos quidem
inferos uspiam scripturarum in bono appellatos potui reperire. Quod
si nusquam in divinis auctoritatibus legitur, non utique sinus ille
Abrahffi, id est secretse cujusdam quietis habitatio, aliqua pars inferorum
esse credenda. Augustini Epistola clxiv. c. 7. Opera, Vol. ii. p. 860.]
[^ This subject is fully discussed by Bishop Pearson on the 5th
Article of the Apostles' Creed.]
f* Adde quod ante I'esurrectionem Christi notus tantum in Judaea
294
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
Ante resurrectionem Christi notus in Judcea Deus, et ipsi qui Jioverarit
eum, tamen ad inferos trahebantur : that is, " Before the resurrection
of Christ God was known in Jury, and they themselves that knew
chris'tus'sit ^^) y^t Were drawn unto hell." St Chrysostom in that place of Esay,
Deus, torn. 5. "J ^nU break the brasen gates, and bruise the iron bars in pieces,
and will open the treasures darkened, &c. " So he calleth hell," saith
he; "for although it were hell, yet it held the holy souls, and pre-
cious vessels, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob '." Mark that he saith, "though
it were heU," yet there were the just men at that time, tiU our Saviour
Christ came to deliver them from thence.
infcrnus
FULKE,
II.
Fulke. As wise and humble as he was, he was not
ready to yield to every opinion of Jerome, as his epistles
written to Jerome do declare. Neither was Jerome so re-
solute in this matter, whereof he speaketh under a cloud
and in an allegory; as it is plain, where he saith the bodies
that were raised at the resurrection of Christ were seen
in the heavenly Jerusalem, whereas it is certain they were
seen only in the earthly Jerusalem actually. But he meaneth,
the effect of Christ's redemption was acknowledged either
in the cathohc church, which is Jerusalem above in one
sense; or else that they shall be seen in the new Jerusalem
erat Deus ; in Israel magnum nomen ejus. Et ipsi qui noverant eum,
tamen ad inferos trahebantur. Hieronymi Epitaphium Nepot. Opera,
Vol. IV. p. 267.
Utrum autem sinus ille Abrahse, ubi dives impius, cum in tor-
mentis esset inferni, requiescentem pauperem vidit, vel paradisi cen-
sendus vocabulo, vel ad inferos iJertinere existimandus sit, non facile
dixerim. De illo quippe divite legimus dictum esse, Mortuus est autem
et dives, et sepidtus est in inferno; et, cum apud inferos in tormentis
esset. In pauperis autem morte vel requie non sunt inferi nominati : sed,
Contigit, inquit, mori inopem ilium, et auferri ab angelis in sinum Abrahce.
Deinde ardenti diviti dicit Abraham, hiter nos et vos chaos magnum fir-
matum est; tanquam inter inferos sedesque beatorum. Non enim facUe
alicubi scripturarum inferorum nomen positum invenitur in bono.
Augustini Epist. clxxxvii. c. 8. Opera, Vol. ii. pp. 1019, 1020.]
P Nvv Se eTepcos 6 'Heraiay, rrvXas x^^'^^^ <xvv&ka.<ja>, Ka\ fiox^ovs
aiBrjpoiis (TvvTpiyjra), koi ai/oi'^co ctol drjaavpovs (TKOTeivovs, dnoKpiKpavs,
aoparovs avadei^co aoi, rbv adrjv ovtco KaXa>v Ei yap Koi adrjs rjv, dhXa
y^v^o-s eKparei dyias Koi (TKevr] rt'/ita, rov ^A^padp., rov 'laaaK, rbv 'laKci/S,
bio KoX drfcravpovs eKaXeo'e' crKOTfivovs 6e, fnelirep oiiBeTru) 6 Trjs diKcuo-
avvrjs T]Xios riv KaraXapyfras avroBi, ov8e tovs ntpl dvacrTaaeais Krjpv^us
\6yovs. Chrysost. contra Judteos et Gentiles quod Christus sit Deus.
Opera, Vol. i. p. 564 ; Vol. vi. p. 626, edit. SavilL]
VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 295
and blessed felicity of the godly at the world's end ; whereof
a testimony was given in that sight of their appearing and
particular resurrection known at Jerusalem on earth.
But you cite another place out of Tertullian, Lib. iv. ad-
versus Marcionem, and in the margin you say, hco citato ; but
I wot not where. And these be Tertulhan's words, if you
be an honest man : "I know that the bosom of Abraham
was no heavenly place, but only the higher hell, or the
higher part of hell." I see you wUl be as bold Avith the
ancient doctors' works, as you are with my poor writings,
whom you make to say even what you hst. In the last
section before you said, St Augustine, Epistol. 99, et de Gen.
ad lit. Lib. xii. cap. 33. doubted whether Abraham's bosom
were called "hell." Quod si nusqiiam, &c. "If it be never
read in the holy scriptures {scilicet that hell is taken in
the good part) verily that bosom of Abraham, that is the
habitation of a certain secret rest, is not to be behoved to
be any part of hell." And again, by reason of the in-
finite chaos, Satis ut opinor appareat, " It may appear, as
I think, sufficiently, that the bosom of that so great feli-
city is not a certain part, and as it were a member of
hell.""* In the other place he speaketh to the same effect,
and upon the same ground, that he never findeth in the
scriptures "heU" taken in good part; and cap. 34, where he
proveth that paradise is heaven, he saith : Quanto magis ergo,
"How much more then may that bosom of Abraham after
this life be called paradise ?" This saith Augustine, and much
more to this purpose ; wherein I thought to have forborne
you, but that you come upon us still with new forgeries.
TertuUian in the book by you quoted, p. 274 of Frob.
printed 1550, thus writeth : Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit,
&c.^ " But Marcion driveth it another way, so forsooth, that
[^ Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit: scilicet utramque mercedem Creatoris,
sive tormenti sive refrigerii, apud inferos detenninat eis positam qui
legi et prophetis obedierint; Christi vero et Dei sui coelestem definit
sinum et portum. Respondebimus, et hac ipsa scriptura revincente
oculos ejus, quae ab inferis discernit Abrahae sinum pauperis. Aliud
enim inferi, ut puto, aliud quoque sinus. Nam et magnum ait inter-
cedere regiones istas i:)rofundum, et trausitum utrinque proliibere. Sed
nee allevasset dives oculos, et quidem de longinquo, nisi in superiora,
et de altitudinis longinquo, per immensam illam distantiam sublimitatis
296 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
he determineth both the rewards of the Creator, either of
torment or of refreshing, to be laid up for them in hell,
which have obeyed the law and the prophets. But of Christ,
and his God, he defineth an heavenly bosom and heaven.
We will answer, and even by this self-same scripture, con-
vincing his blindness, which agamst hell discerneth tliis Abra-
ham's bosom to the poor man. For one thmg is hell, (as
I thmk,) and Abraham's bosom another thing. For a great
depth, he saith, is between those regions, and that doth let
the passage to and fro. But neither should the rich man
have lifted up his eyes, and that tnily from afar oif, but into
higher places, and that of an exceeding height, by that in-
finite distance of height and depth. Whereof it appeareth
to every wise man, that hath ever heard of the Elysian fields,
that there is some local determination, which is called Abra-
ham's bosom, to receive the souls of his sons, even of the
gentiles; he being the father of many nations, to be accounted
of Abraham's family, and of the same faith, by wliich Abra-
ham behoved God under no yoke of the law, nor in the
sign of circumcision. That region therefore I call the bosom
of Abraham, and if not heavenly, yet higher than hell, which
shall give rest in the mean season to the souls of the just,
until the consummation of things do finish the resurrection of
all with the fulness of reward." This is as much as I can
find in Tertulhan touching Abraham's bosom, which is clean
contrary to that you affirm him to speak. For by this say-
ing it is manifest, that your opinion is Marcion's heresy.
Secondly, that Abraham's bosom is not hell, but higher by
an infinite distance, although not in full perfection of heavenly
glory. Thirdly, that it is not limbus patrum, but the re-
ceptacle of all the just souls to the end of the world. Ter-
et profunditatis. Unde apparet sapienti cuique, qui aliquando elysios
audierit, esse aliquara localem determinationem, quae sinus dicta sit
Abrahae, ad recipiendas animas filiorum ejus, etiam ex nationibus; patris
scilicet multarum nationum in Abrahs censum deputandarum et ex eadem
fide, qua et Abraham Deo credidit, nullo sub jugo legis, nee in signo
circumcisionis. Earn itaque regionem, sinum dico Abrahae, etsi non
coelestem, sublimiorem tamen inferis, interim refrigerium praebituram
animabus justorum, donee coiisummatio rerum resurrectionem omnium
plenitudine mercedis expungat. Tertull. Adv. Marcion, Lib. iv. Edit.
Rigult. p. 559.]
VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 297
tullian's authority therefore doth you small pleasure, and less
honesty, unless you did cite liim more truly. But I am
unwise to look for plain dealing and smcerity at your hands.
Well, your limbus patrum, the very brim, or uppermost,
or outmost part of hell, wherein all the patriarchs should rest,
we have now found from whence it came, even from yom'
old acquaintance, the mouse of Pontus, Marcion the abomi-
nable heretic. The other saying of Jerome, but that the
opinion of the fathers in hell had by that time taken some
strength, might be understood of the mortahty whereunto
they were subject, and never should have been raised, but by
the resurrection of Christ; as it seemeth by that which he
opposeth of all nations, since the passion and resurrection of
Christ, acknowledged to speak like pliilosophers of the im-
mortality of the soul, and rejoicing in the resm*rection of the
dead, as the fathers mourned at their death. Chrysostom's
place is more apparent for your error, although he also
may be understood to speak allegorically of the effect of
Christ's death and resurrection, by which all the patriai'chs
were delivered from death, and heU was spoiled ; not that
they were in prison there, but that the justice of God had
condemned them thither, if Christ's death had not redeemed
them : but I wiU not stand to clear Chrysostom of tliis error,
which it is sufficient for me to have found that Marcion the
old heretic was the first author thereof, by Tertulhan's con-
fession ; howsoever it came to pass, that many good men after-
ward, deceived by the words ct^»/<,' and infernus, did hold it.
Martin. Therefore did Jacob say, " I will go down to my son unto Martin,
hell." And again he saith : " If any misfortune happen to (Benjamin) q"^ yiXyiu.
by the way, you shall bruig my grey head with sorrow unto hell,"
which is repeated again twice in the chap. xliv. ; by which phrase the holy
scripture will signify, not only death, but also the descending at that
time of all sorts of souls into hell, both good and bad. And there- i Kings u '.
F' Kat oil iiT] a6<aoia-r)s avrov, otl av^p (ro0oj el crii, kol yvaxrr)
a 7roL7]aeLs avra, Koi Kara^eis ttjp noXiav avrov iv aluari els dSov.
1 Kings ii. 9. "Tu noli pati eum esse innoxium. Vir autem sapiens es,
ut scias quije facies ei, deducesque canos ejus cum sanguine ab inferos,"
Vulg. "Deal with him therefore according to thy wisdom, and bring not
his hoar head down to the grave in peace," Edit. 1562. " But thou shalt
not count him as unguilty : for thou art a man of wisdom, and knowest
what thou oughtest to do unto him, his hoar head thou shalt bring
'298 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cil.
fore it is spoken of all sorts in the holy scripture, both of good and
of bad. For all went then into hell ; but some into a place there of
rest, others into other places there of torments. And therefore St Jerome
In cap. 13. saith, speaking of hell, according to the old testament : " Hell is a place
Psai. ixxxv. wherein souls are included ; either in rest, or iu pains, according to the
131.
quality of theu* deserts^."
FuLKE, Fulke. Jacob said he would be joined to his son bj
^"' death, as in the other text you bring it is more manifest than
the sun at noon days. For Jacob, speaking of his grey head,
must needs mean of his body, and therefore of the grave,
and not of hell. So in the 3 Eeg. 2, which you quote,
David chargeth Salomon, that he suffereth not the grey head
of Joab to go down to the grave in peace, and that he shall
cause the hoar head of Shemei to go down to the grave with
blood; which by no means can be understood of his soul going
to hell, which goeth not with blood; although it is plain
enough by the word " hoar head," that he meaneth his body
in age, or liis old body. And this text Pagnine, in his die-
to the grave with blood," Edit. 1584. " Therefore thou shalt cause
his hoar head to go down to the grave with blood," Geneva, 1560.
" But his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood," Autho-
rised version.
Kai KarejBrjcrav avTo\, Kcii oaa eari avrcov ^covra et? aSov. Numb.
xvi. 33. " Descenderuntque vivi in infernum," Vulg. " They, and
all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit," Authorised
version.]
[} Et descenderunt ipsi, et omnia qucECumque sunt eis, viventes ad
■inferos. Notandum secundum locum terrenum dictos esse inferos, hoc
est in inferioribus terree partibus. Varie quippe in scripturis et sub
intellectu multiplici, sicut rerum de quibus agitur sensus exigit, nomen
ponitur inferorum, et maxime in mortuis hoc accijii solet. Sed quoniam
istos viventes dictum est ad inferos descendisse, et ipsa narratione quid
factum fuerit satis apparet; manifestum est, ut dixi, inferiores partes
teiTfe inferorum vocabulo nuncupatas, in comparatione hujus superioris
terrae in cujus facie vivitur; sicut in comparatione coeli superioris, ubi
sanctorum demoratio est angelorum, peccantes angelos in hujus aeris
detrusos caliginem scriptura dicit tanquam carceribus inferi puniendos
reservari. Augustini Quaestiones in Numeros, c. xxix. Opera, Vol. iii.
pp. 838, 839. Edit. Bened. Paris. 1836.]
P Inter mortem autem et inferos hoc interest : mors est, qua anima
separatur a corpore ; infernus, locus in quo animtc recluduntur, sive
in refrigcrio, sive in pa>nis, pro qualitate meritorum. Comment. Hiero-
nymi in Osee. c. xiii. Opera, Vol. in. p. 1329.]
VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 299
tionary, thought necessary to be understood of the grave,
although he make the word sheol indifferent to signify "hell,"
and the "grave." That all went to hell, some to rest, and some
to torments, it was first devised by Marcion the heretic. But
St Jerome is once again cited in Osea, cap. xiii. where he
saith, " that hell is a place wherein souls are included," &c. :
by wliich you see that he speaketh not of limhus, wherein
souls were included before Christ, but of such a place wherein
they are now included ; taking the word in/emus generally
for any place that receiveth the souls of the departed, as he
saith most plainly himself in the same place : Quicquid
igitur separat fratres, infernus est appellandus. "Whatso-
ever doth separate brethren, is to be called hell." Augustine
is quoted to multiply a lie, and for nothing else, as I have
shewed before.
Martin. And in this sense it is also often said in the holy scrip- Martin,
tures, that such and such were gathered, or laid to their fathers, though ^'^•
they were buried in divers places, and died not in the same state of The scrip-
salvation, or damnation. In that sense, Samuel being raised up to speak another Lii,
to Saul, said, " To-morrow thou and thy sons shall be with me :" that the'dlmned°^
is, dead, and in hell, though not in the same place or state there: in
this sense all such places of the holy scripture as have the word "infei-i,"
or "infernus," correspondent both to the Greek and Hebrew, ought to
be, and may be most conveniently translated by the word "hell." As
when it is said, " Thou hast delivered my soul from the lower hell," Ab inferno
Psal. Ixxxviii. 13, that is, as St Augustine expoundeth it, " Thou hast
preserved me from mortal sins, that would have brought me into the
lower hell, which is for the damned." Which place of holy scripture,
and the like, when they translate " grave," see how miserably it soundeth :
" Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave." Which they Bib. 1579.
would never say for very shame, but that they are afraid to say in
any place, be the holy scriptures never so plain, that any soul was
delivered or returned from hell, lest thereof it might follow by and by,
that the patriarchs, and our Saviour Christ, were in such a hell,
Fulke. That which is spoken indifferently of the elect Fulke,
and reprobate, must needs bo understood of that which is ^'^'
common to both, that is, corporal death. How can it be
verified of their souls, that they were laid to the fathers,
when between the godly and the wicked there is an infinite
distance? but the earth, the grave, or pit, is a common
receptacle of all dead bodies. That Samuel, which being
raised up spake to Saul, might ti-uly say of his soul, though
300 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [cH.
not of all his sons, that he should be with him in hell, (for
it was the spirit of Satan, and not of Samuel, although coun-
terfeiting Samuel,) he might speak of the death of Saul and
his sons. As for that verse of the eighty-fifth psalm \ where-
upon you do falsely so often allege St Augustine's resolution,
what absurdity hath it, to translate it, "from the lowest grave,"
or "from the bottom of the grave" ? whereby David meaneth
extreme danger of death that he was in by the mahce of his
persecuting enemies, Saul and his accomplices. But we "are
afraid to say in any place, that any 'soul was delivered and
returned from hell.' " We say that the souls of all the faith-
ful are delivered from hell ; but of any which after death is
condemned to hell, we acknowledge no return. And these
words are spoken by David while he lived, and praised God
for his deliverance; which might be not only from the "grave,"
but also from "hell," saving that he here speaketh of his pre-
servation from death.
IMAnTiN, Martin. And that this is their fear, it is evident, because that in
14- all other places, where it is plain that the holy scriptures speak of
the hell of the damned, from whence there is no return, they trans-
late there the veiy same word " hell," and not " grave." As for example,
Prov. XV. 24. " The way of life is on high to the prudent, to avoid from hell beneath^."
Lo, here that is translated " hell beneath," wliich before was translated
" the lowest grave." And again, " Hell and destruction are before the
Lord : how much more the hearts of the sons of men 1" But when in
the holy scriptures there is mention of delivery of a soul from hell.
Bib. 1579. then thus they translate : " God shall deliver my soul from the power
inferi. of the grave, for he will receive me." Can you tell what they would
say ? doth God deliver them from the grave, or from temporal death,
[1 on TO eXfus (Tov fieya eV efie, kol ippvcro) ti)v \j/v^i']v fiov i^
ahov KarcoTaTov. Psal, Lxxxv. 13. "Quia misericordia tua magna est
super me ; et eruisti animam meam ex inferno inferiori," Vulg. " For
great is thy mercy toward me ; and thou hast delivered my soul from
the nethermost hell," Bishops' bible, 1584; Cranmer, 1562. "For
great is thy mercy toward me ; for thou hast delivered my soul from
the lowest grave," Geneva version, 1560, 1579.]
^ '08o\ C^TjS diavotjixara <tvv€tov, Iva iKKkivas eK tov aSov (rcodrj.
Prov. XV. 24. " Semita vitse super eruditum, ut declinet de inferno no-
vissimo," Vulg. " The way of life is above to the wise, that he may
depart from hell beneath," Version 1611. "The way of life is on high
to the prudent, to avoid from hell beneath," Geneva, 1560. " The
way of life leadeth unto heaven, that a man should beware of hell
VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. 301
whom he receiveth to his mercy 1 or hath the grave any power over
the soul? Again, when they say, "Wliat man liveth and shall not
see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave?"
FtilJce. I have shewed before divers thnes, that although Fulke,
the Hebrew word sheol do properly signify a receptacle of ■^'*"
the bodies after death, yet when mention is of the wicked, by
consequence it may signify "hell ;" as the day signifieth light,
the night darkness, fire heat, peace signifieth prosperity, and
an hundi^ed such like speeches. But where you say that
Proverbs xv. 24, that is translated "hell beneath," which before
was translated the " lowest grave," Psalm Ixxxv. 13, you say
untruly ; for although in both places there is the word sheol,
yet in that psahn there is tachtijah, in the Proverbs mattah, ''t- : -
for which if it were translated "the grave," that declineth, or is ritSO
downward, it were no inconvenience. In the other texts
you trifle upon the word "soul;" whereas the Hebrew word sig-
nifieth not the reasonable soul, which is separable from the
body, but the life, or the whole person of man, which may
rightly be said to be dehvered from the hand or power of
the grave, as the verse 48^ doth plainly declare, when in the
latter part is repeated the sense of the former, as it is in
many places of the Psalms.
Martin. If they take " gi'ave" properly, where man's body is buried, Martin,
it is not true either that every soul, yea, or e\erj body is buried in '
beneath," Cranmer, 1562. " The way of life is on high to the wise,
that a man should beware of hell beneath," Bishops' bible, 1584.
'Ek x^i-po^ a8ov pvcrofiai, Koi eK davarov XvTpuxrofiai avrovs' ttov
■fj VLKT) aov, davare ; ttov to Kevrpov (tov, oSt; ; " De manu mortis liberabo
eos, de morte redimam eos; ero mors tua, o mors, morsus tuus ero,
inferne," Vulg. " I will ransom them from the power of the grave ;
I will redeem them from death : O death, I will be thy plagues ; O
grave, I will be thy destruction," Version 1611. Hosea xiii. 14.
Hov (TOV, davare, to KiVTpov ; ttov aov, aSr], to vIkos ; " Ubi est,
mors, victoria tua ? ubi est, mors, stimulus tuus ?" Vulg. " Oh death,
where is thy sting ? oh grave, where is thy victory ?" Authorised ver-
sion, 1611. 1 Cor. XV. 55.]
P pv(T€Tai TTjv ■^v)(i)v avTov €K x^'poy 0.80V ; Psal. Ixxxvii. 48. "Eruet
animam suam de manu inferi ?" Vulg. Ixxxix. 48. " And shall he
deliver his soul from the hand of hell?" Bishops' bible, 1584 ; Cranmer,
1562. "Shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave?" Geneva,
1560 ; Authorised version.]
302 A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH [CH.
a grave. But if in all such places they will say they mean nothing
else but to signify death, and that to go down into the grave, and to
die, is all one ; we ask them, why they follow not the words of the
holy scripture to signify the same thing, which call it going down to
" hell," not going down to the " grave" ? Here they must needs open
the mystery of antichrist working in their translations, and say, that
so they should make hell a common place to all that departed in the
old testament; which they will not, no, not in the most important places
of our belief concerning our Saviour Christ's descending into hell, and
triumphing over the same. Yea, therefore of purpose they will not,
only for to defeat that part of our christian creed.
FuLKE, FulTce. We cannot always take the word "grave" pro-
■'^' perly, when the scripture useth it figuratively. But if we
say, to go down to the grave and to die is all one, you ask
us why we follow not the words of the holy scripture. I
answer. We do, for the scripture calleth it "grave," and not
"hell." Where then is your vain clattering of the mystery of
antichrist, that we must open ? Because we will not acknow-
ledge that heretical common-place, invented by Marcion the
heretic, we purpose to defeat the article of Christ's descend-
ing into hell. A monstrous slander ! when we do openly
confess it, and his triumphing over hell in more triumphant
manner than you determine it. For if he descended into
that hell only, in which were the souls of the feitliful, which
was a place of rest, of comfort, of joy, and felicity ; what
triumph was it to overcome such an hell? which, if you
take away the hateful name of " hell," by your own descrip-
tion will prove rather an heaven than an hell. But we
believe that he triumphed over the hell of the damned,
and over all the power of darkness, which he subdued by
the virtue of his obechence and sacrifice, so that it should
never be able to claim or hold any of his elect, whom he
had redeemed.
Martin, Martin. As when the prophet first, Osea xiii., and afterward the
apostle, 1 Cor. xv. in the Greek, say thus ^ : Ero mors tua, o mors, morsvK
n 'K.aTtnoQrj 6 Odvaros fls vikos. ttov (tov, ddvare, to Ktvrpov ; tvov
(rov, a8r], to vIkos ; to Se KevTpov tov OavaTov rj dfiapTia. 1 Cor. xv.
54, 65, 56. "Absorptaest mors in victoria: ubi est, mors, victoria tua?
ubi est, mors, stimulus tuus ? Stimulus autem mortis peccatum est,"
Vulg. " Death is consumed into victory. Death, where is thy sting ?
16
VII.] TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLK. 303
tuus ero, infcrne. Ubi est, mors, stimulus tuns? ubi est, infefi-ne, victoria ^'y^'^
tua ? " O death, I will be thy death : I will be thy sting, O hell. ^ ^,j '
Where is, O death, thy sting ? where is, O hell, thy victory V They
translate in both places, " O grave," instead of " O hell." What else ^iij- 1573.
can be their meaning hereby, but to draw the reader from the com-
mon sense of our Saviour Christ's descending into hell, and conquering
the same, and bringing out the fathers and just men triumphantly from
thence into heaven? which sense hath always been the common sense
of the catholic church and holy doctors, specially upon this place of ^ee s. Hier.
'' 5 1 .; X i. Comment, in
the prophet. And what a kind of speech is this, and out of all tune, i3. Osee^,
to make our Saviour Christ say, " O grave, I will be thy destruction" ?
as though he had triumphed over the grave, and not over hell ; or over
the grave, that is, over death ; and so the prophet should say " death"
twice, and "hell" not at all.
Fulke. St Jerome, whom you quote in the margm, to Fulke,
prove that all the catholic doctors understood this text of^^-
Osee, of Christ's descending into hell, and thereby reprove
our translation, which for "hell" saith "grave," after he hath
repeated the words of the apostle, 1 Cor. xv. upon this text,
thus he concludeth : Itaque quod ille in resu7'rectionem
interpretatus est Domini, nos aliter interpretari nee jyos-
sumus nee audemus. "Therefore that which the apostle hath
interpreted of our Lord's resurrection, we neither can nor
dare interpret otherwise." You see therefore by Jerome's
judgment, that in this text, which is proper of Christ's re-
surrection, it is more proper to use the word of "grave," than
of "hell." How vainly the same Jerome interpreteth the last
words of this chapter, of spoiling the treasure of every vessel
that is desirable, of Christ's deUvering out of hell the most
precious vessels of the saints, &c. I am not ignorant ; but we
speak of translation of the 14th verse, wliich being un-
derstood of Christ's resurrection, it argueth, that the grave
is spoken of, rather than hell. As for the repetition of
Hell, where is thy victory ? The sting of death is sin," Tyndale,
1534. " Death is swallowed up in victory ; death, where is thy sting ?
Hell, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin," Cranmer, 1539.
Bishops' bible, 1584, with an interjection. "Death is swallowed up into
victory. Death, where is thy sting ? gi'ave, where is thy victory ? the
sting of death is sin," Geneva, 1577. Authorised Version, 1611, with an
interjection after. " Death is swallowed up in victory. Death, where is
thy victory ! Death, where is thy sting, and the sting of death is sin,"
Rheims, 1582.]
P Comment. Hieronymi in Osee, c. xiii. Opera, Vol. in. p. 1330.]
304
A DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH
[CH.
one thing twice for vehomency and certainty's sake, [it] is no
inconvenient tiling, but commonly used in the scriptures.
Martin,
17.
FULKK,
17.
Mdrtbi. Wliy, my masters, you that are so wonderful precise trans-
lators, admit that our Saviour Christ descended not into hell beneath,
as you say, yet 1 think you will grant that he triumphed over hell,
and was conqueror of the same. Why then did it not please you to
suffer the prophet to say so at the least, rather than that he had con-
quest only of "death" and the " grave" ? You abuse your ignorant reader
very impudently, and your own selves very damnably, not only in this,
but in that you make " grave," and " death," all one ; and so, where
tlie holy scripture often joineth together "death" and "hell," as things
different and distinct, you make them speak but one thing twice, idly
and supei-fluously.
Fulke. For our faith of Clu'ist's triumphing over hell,
I have spoken already sufficiently ; but of the prophet's
meaning, beside the words themselves, the apostle is best
expounder, who referreth it to the resurrection, and his
victory over death, which he hath gained not for liimself
alone, but for all his elect. Where you say we make "grave"
and "death" all one, it is false. We know they differ; but
that one may be signified by the other, without any idle or
superfluous repetition, in one verse, I refer me to a whole
hmidred of examples, that may be brought out of the Psalms,
the Prophets, and the Proverbs, where words of the same,
like, or near signification are twice together repeated, to
note the same matter ; which none but a blasphemous dog
will say to be done idly or superfluously.
Martin,
18.
Hierom. in
Osee. c. 13. i
Martin. But will you know that you should not confound them,
but that mors and infernus, which are the words of the holy scripture,
in all tongues are distinct ; hear what St Jerome saith : or if you will
not hear, because you are of them which "have stopped their ears,"
let the indifferent christian reader hearken to this holy doctor and great
interpreter of the holy scriptures, according to his singular knowledge
in all the learned tongues. Upon the aforesaid place of the prophet,
after he had spoken of our Saviour Christ's descending into hell, and
overcoming of death, he addeth : " Between death a